Fox, ABC agree to 99-cent TV rentals
Apple has reached an agreement with both News Corp. and Walt Disney to allow 99-cent rentals of Fox and ABC TV shows through iTunes, according to a new report.
Although some executives within the two media companies have reservations about the deal, the partnership is ready to be announced Wednesday, according to the The Wall Street Journal. Citing "people familiar with the matter," the Journal noted Tuesday that while some of the management at Fox was uncomfortable with the pricing, which could jeopardize traditional income avenues, they were willing to go along with the "experiment."
ABC is generally assumed to have been the first studio on board, as Apple CEO Steve Jobs is Disney's largest shareholder and a board member. Disney was also the first content provider to agree to sell its TV shows on iTunes in 2005.
Fox has agreed to offer broadcast shows that it "both produces and airs," such as "Glee," "Bones," and "Lie to Me."
Earlier reports claimed that Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp., was prepared to agree to Apple's pricing in order to help solidify a relationship with Jobs. Since Murdoch is pushing for a dedicated iPad and tablet news division, getting on Jobs' 'good side' with a TV rental agreement could benefit the news side of News Corp.'s business.
Alongside the newly priced TV show rentals, a $99 re-designed Apple TV with a focus on streaming content is expected to be announced Wednesday at Apple's media event, which begins at 10 a.m. Pacific Time, 1 p.m. Eastern.
Although some executives within the two media companies have reservations about the deal, the partnership is ready to be announced Wednesday, according to the The Wall Street Journal. Citing "people familiar with the matter," the Journal noted Tuesday that while some of the management at Fox was uncomfortable with the pricing, which could jeopardize traditional income avenues, they were willing to go along with the "experiment."
ABC is generally assumed to have been the first studio on board, as Apple CEO Steve Jobs is Disney's largest shareholder and a board member. Disney was also the first content provider to agree to sell its TV shows on iTunes in 2005.
Fox has agreed to offer broadcast shows that it "both produces and airs," such as "Glee," "Bones," and "Lie to Me."
Earlier reports claimed that Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp., was prepared to agree to Apple's pricing in order to help solidify a relationship with Jobs. Since Murdoch is pushing for a dedicated iPad and tablet news division, getting on Jobs' 'good side' with a TV rental agreement could benefit the news side of News Corp.'s business.
Alongside the newly priced TV show rentals, a $99 re-designed Apple TV with a focus on streaming content is expected to be announced Wednesday at Apple's media event, which begins at 10 a.m. Pacific Time, 1 p.m. Eastern.
Comments
so you have to pay $99 for an iTV and then pay for each TV show you want to watch? these aren't even cable shows, these are network television that you get for FREE over the air with BETTER HD QUALITY than streaming OR cable.
if you replace your high end digital cable (let's say $60/month) and completely move to iTV, you'll end up paying the same price and you'll be limited to watching two shows a day. The average American watches something like 4 hours of TV a day.
Can you see how media companies are already ready to shoot themselves in the foot with streaming IPTV? If they don't give us a real deal, people are just going to resort to free online streaming video (piracy).
Network TV shows should be FREE. Cable TV shows should be available for a very small cost. Not 99 cents for every episode you watch.
rent a TV show? for 99 cents? i thought you could buy episodes to watch forever for $1.99. isn't this even more of a rip off?
so you have to pay $99 for an iTV and then pay for each TV show you want to watch? these aren't even cable shows, these are network television that you get for FREE over the air with BETTER HD QUALITY than streaming OR cable.
if you replace your high end digital cable (let's say $60/month) and completely move to iTV, you'll end up paying the same price and you'll be limited to watching two shows a day. The average American watches something like 4 hours of TV a day.
Can you see how media companies are already ready to shoot themselves in the foot with streaming IPTV? If they don't give us a real deal, people are just going to resort to free online streaming video (piracy).
Network TV shows should be FREE. Cable TV shows should be available for a very small cost. Not 99 cents for every episode you watch. With the cost of distribution over the internet being lower than cable or broadcast, it should all be free, with a reduced number of ads.
1) If I want to watch a show once, how am I being ripped off if I?m paying half the price that I?d have to pay today to watch a TV show from iTS once?
2) Do you take your cable box or satellite with you when you leave the house? With iTS can you can take your videos with you.
3) Network shows are not free. You pay for them with your cable and with your time by sitting through commercials.
4) If one isn?t a heavy TV watcher then I?d say that $60/month for a service you aren?t using is a waste of money and a ?ripoff?. Don?t you agree?
5) If one doesn?t have a PVR, if that PVR for some reason doesn?t record a show, or if you are not at your home then catching up on a show you?ve missed by renting it for 99¢ sounds pretty reasonable. Don?t you agree?
6) If you were taking a long flight and wanted some video content for the flight would you pack your PVR and TV, would try to stream it at home and hope if decides to save a local copy in RAM for your flight, or would you rent it from a service that allows you to keep a local copy on your device for a month? The latter sounds the most reasonable to me.
6) I don?t understand this concept of a service should be free or shouldn?t exist at all simply because it doesn?t suit one?s particular needs. I probably won?t be using this TV show rental service much if at all (I don?t use the iTS as it is) but I can certainly find reasons and scenarios why this would appeal to certain consumers.
rent a TV show? for 99 cents? i thought you could buy episodes to watch forever for $1.99. isn't this even more of a rip off?
It's a bit high to start with but I don't think it's totally out of line. They'll be on-demand and (presumably) ad free. I think you're right though that the iTV won't be targeted towards the marathon TV watcher at first. There's a good argument to be made though that IPTV is going to change the way lots of people watch TV. If you tune in at 7PM to watch the Wheel of Fortune you might just keep watching for 3 hours to catch the CSI at 10PM. In an interactive / on-demand world you might just run the Wheel of Fortune app and play along with interactive features. When you're done you load up the network app for CSI and watch it -- or maybe you just browse your friends Facebook photos, or look at some stupid Internet meme sites. It's really going to blur the lines. (not just the iTV but all IPTV set tops)
(Another exciting prospect when we reach the point of really good quality live streams is the ability to watch sports -- select different cameras, look at stats, read Twitter posts in-line, etc. The MLB app already shows where that's heading. I bet ESPN is on-board tomorrow with a big push for ESPN360 / ESPN3. )
Popularity as well as increased revenue for the newtworks will determine in which direction this experiment goes.
Many networks, cable providers and other media interactives will be watching to see how they can capitalise on this.
Remember, renting a TV show for 24 hours may not be as popular as owning music. But then again time will tell.
I wonder if this means the shows on abc.com and fox.com will no longer be free?
I don?t see the correlation. One is an ad-supported streaming while the other is an ad-free download.
Countdown to another blind, irrational Rupert Murdoch hate-fest in 5?4?3?2?
There's nothing irrational about hating Murdoch. The man is pretty much pure evil, and has spent his life spreading a noxious mix of sleaze and far right ultra nationalist propaganda. Oh, and influencing/buying elections all over the world, let's not forget that.
Here in the UK he owns most of the media (print and TV) and so reports news VERY selectively. ie. anything which he doesn't agree with, mysteriously vanishes. He's also on a mission to destroy the BBC.
Apple is serious about content and they know that is what is going to sell their mobile devices and launch people to buy Macs. At this point no other vendor can match the one stop shop that iTunes and the App Store has become. I just wish they would jump into a web based iTunes soon. The iTunes software needs to be streamlined.
These rentals are .99. Fine, but I'd like an option of free with commercials or iADs.
People want cable ala carte. That is, just pay for the networks they're interested in.
So, renting just individual shows, especially ones that are free anyway, is a very limited step towards solving the cable stranglehold - if a step at all. Rent The Office? Really? The convenience of taking it mobile is fine, but most people most of the time have no interest in doing this. So where's the value?
I want to subscribe to whole networks, subsidized in part at least with ads - but it has to save me money over cable - or there's no point.
rent a TV show? for 99 cents? i thought you could buy episodes to watch forever for $1.99. isn't this even more of a rip off?
so you have to pay $99 for an iTV and then pay for each TV show you want to watch? these aren't even cable shows, these are network television that you get for FREE over the air with BETTER HD QUALITY than streaming OR cable.
if you replace your high end digital cable (let's say $60/month) and completely move to iTV, you'll end up paying the same price and you'll be limited to watching two shows a day. The average American watches something like 4 hours of TV a day.
Can you see how media companies are already ready to shoot themselves in the foot with streaming IPTV? If they don't give us a real deal, people are just going to resort to free online streaming video (piracy).
Network TV shows should be FREE. Cable TV shows should be available for a very small cost. Not 99 cents for every episode you watch.
Exactly. Right now I get free Over THe Air in HD - better PQ than cable. Then, all I want is the Discover family of networks. It takes a $60 package just for that - so I forego it and DL the shows from TPB. Give me those networks for $20 over AppleTV and I'll pay. Otherwise.. forget it.
unless it has safari or a BBC iPlayer app- in that case count me in!
He's also on a mission to destroy the BBC.
Good I hope he wins. I hate the BBC.
Countdown to another blind, irrational Rupert Murdoch hate-fest in 5?4?3?2?
It's not irrational to hate Murdoch. Anyone who would hire Roger Ailes to run a news network is someone intent on ruining the very concept of news journalism. He's ruined journalism, ruined choice, ruined news, and now he's trying to ruin the interweb. He's a fucking disgrace.
rent a TV show? for 99 cents? i thought you could buy episodes to watch forever for $1.99. isn't this even more of a rip off?
so you have to pay $99 for an iTV and then pay for each TV show you want to watch? these aren't even cable shows, these are network television that you get for FREE over the air with BETTER HD QUALITY than streaming OR cable.
if you replace your high end digital cable (let's say $60/month) and completely move to iTV, you'll end up paying the same price and you'll be limited to watching two shows a day. The average American watches something like 4 hours of TV a day.
Can you see how media companies are already ready to shoot themselves in the foot with streaming IPTV? If they don't give us a real deal, people are just going to resort to free online streaming video (piracy).
Network TV shows should be FREE. Cable TV shows should be available for a very small cost. Not 99 cents for every episode you watch.
You obviously have no respect for the content creators, or the work of those who bring the film/tv show to your screen. Remove the advertising revenue and it's necessary for these companies to charge for their work in order to pay their staff and invest in new programming.
Why on EARTH should network shows be free - do you give away your work free of charge?
What a selfish, cheap argument. 99 cents too expensive for 45 - 50 minutes entertainment for you? Here's hoping that no one thinks that whatever you do for a living is worthless, or you'd soon be out of a job. 99c IS a very small fee. This is an alternative, a cheap alternative - a series of 12 episodes for less than $12. That's inexpensive. Or you can download illegal content, cost the producers yet more loss of revenue and ensure these price points never reduce. Well done you.
Right now I am taking advantage of the most important advance in TV delivery of the past few decades, namely the PVR. I watch what I want on my schedule and never find myself lacking in programming to enjoy. I pay a flat rate for the content.
What I don't like is that that flat rate is rather costly and that the quality of HD transmitted via my cable subscriber can be rather poor.
We have a multi-generational, multi-cultural household. That means programming in two languages and two very different consumers, one group computer savvy and the other gadget challenged.
I suspect Apple will be unable to offer my household a viable alternative to cable any time soon. On the other hand, there may well be households for which the model Apple appears to favour will make a lot of sense. Nothing wrong with that.