Apple looking to halve cost of iTunes TV downloads - report

[AppleInsider]

In an aggressive bid to push more digital video sales, Apple Inc. is reportedly talking to television networks about cutting the price of TV show downloads through iTunes in half.

Citing three people familiar with the proposal, Variety claims that Apple has told networks and studios that it would like to slash the cost of most TV episodes sold via iTunes from the current $1.99 to just $0.99 -- the same price it charges for most music singles.

Apple reportedly believes the move will spur a more than a twofold increase in sales of the digital television downloads, which would effectively offset the impact of the price reduction through higher volumes.

Not surprisingly, the networks have been hesitant to embrace to the concept, which may have also played a part in NBC's decision last week not to renew its current iTunes distribution deal, according to Variety.

Of particular concern for networks is the impact such a move would have of sales of high-margin DVD box sets, and subsequently the networks' partnerships with large DVD resellers such as Wal-Mart, Target and Best Buy.

For instance, NBC Universal's just released "Heroes" on DVD is expected to retail in most stores for about $40 for the set of 23 episodes. But under Apple's proposed plan, the same set of episodes would cost less than $23, potentially cannibalizing the DVD sales.

Still, there are some studios that may be willing to entertain Apple's proposal. Variety speculates, for example, that MTV or A&E may welcome the chance to sell their reality shows at a lower price, particularly since Apple would reward them with greater promotion on iTunes.

An Apple spokesman declined to comment on the report, pointing only to a previous statement that it wouldn't agree to NBC's request for a "dramatic price increase."

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Cato988]

that makes $.99 for a song seem like too much

[TheArtist]

the downloads can't be burned to DVD so kind of limited in their use

[danielctull]

Apple would never shave a huge amount off a product because that would annoy a lot of already paid custo..... Oh yeah, right...

[syklee26]

.99 for a song is reasonable compared to .99 for TV episodes. you have to understand the difference here. TV episodes are usually after it was broadcast on TV. the value of re-viewing the TV episode is significantly less than listening to a song again.


with that said, if TV networks are unwilling to go down to .99, I will be more than happy to see them cut the price to $1.29 to $1.49 range.

also, cutting into DVD market doesn't necessarily mean TV networks will lose money. They can save some good amount in DVD production, case design, marketing, etc.

for example, right now buying entire 24 episodes of 24 season 6 would be for $44.99. buying DVD at amazon.com or some other web-based vendor would be about $29.99. who da heck would want to buy from iTunes? since web vendors are selling it for about $29.99, it's clear that network is selling it to vendors for no more than $19.99.

if networks sell it for $1.29 per episodes, then total amount for a season would be $30.96. I don't see how networks would lose money on this.

[mugwump]

Ratings would double.

[Lafe]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

... But under Apple's proposed plan, the same set of episodes would cost less than $23, potentially cannibalizing the DVD sales.

There's that word 'cannibalizing' (or if you prefer, 'cannibalising') again.

Like when someone's afraid iPod touch will cannibalize iPhone sales.

I thought cannibals ate their own kind. If that's the definition, I'd like to see
journalists, bloggers, pundits, et al, stop misusing it. A download is not a DVD.
An iPod touch is not an iPhone.

How about "preying upon". That's a creature eating a creature of a different
kind, right? That should work.

"...potentially preying upon the DVD sales."

Sounds better.

[bigpics]

Originally Posted by syklee26

.99 for a song is reasonable compared to .99 for TV episodes. you have to understand the difference here. TV episodes are usually after it was broadcast on TV. the value of re-viewing the TV episode is significantly less than listening to a song again.


with that said, if TV networks are unwilling to go down to .99, I will be more than happy to see them cut the price to $1.29 to $1.49 range.

also, cutting into DVD market doesn't necessarily mean TV networks will lose money. They can save some good amount in DVD production, case design, marketing, etc.

for example, right now buying entire 24 episodes of 24 season 6 would be for $44.99. buying DVD at amazon.com or some other web-based vendor would be about $29.99. who da heck would want to buy from iTunes? since web vendors are selling it for about $29.99, it's clear that network is selling it to vendors for no more than $19.99.

if networks sell it for $1.29 per episodes, then total amount for a season would be $30.96. I don't see how networks would lose money on this.

$1.49 sounds about right. 20 cents more than a non-DRM'd track, stimulative to video downloads, would "feel reasonable" to buyers and at $35.76 without the "extras" on a DVD neither threat nor inducement to those who prefer to buy a disk.

If this story is anything more than speculation, that is....

[calguy]

Originally Posted by syklee26

.
with that said, if TV networks are unwilling to go down to .99, I will be more than happy to see them cut the price to $1.29 to $1.49 range.

also, cutting into DVD market doesn't necessarily mean TV networks will lose money. They can save some good amount in DVD production, case design, marketing, etc.

for example, right now buying entire 24 episodes of 24 season 6 would be for $44.99. buying DVD at amazon.com or some other web-based vendor would be about $29.99. who da heck would want to buy from iTunes? since web vendors are selling it for about $29.99, it's clear that network is selling it to vendors for no more than $19.99.

if networks sell it for $1.29 per episodes, then total amount for a season would be $30.96. I don't see how networks would lose money on this.

I haven't downloaded very many TV shows. Most of them were the free promo ones. If the price were based on quality of video then it should be lower than the DVDs. I just looked at Amazon.com and they are selling Heroes for 39.99 or the HD DVD version for 69.95. These are initial prices and the "new & used" section prices go down more and more afer time has passed by other vendors that sell through Amazon.

Let's not forget about all the extras on the DVDs, including behind the scenes, interviews, commentaries, etc. that you don't get with the iTunes download. I prefer buying the DVDs for those extras along with the higher quality playback. I have a 23" Apple Cinema Display and you really can see the difference between DVD and download playback.

[caliminius]

There was a post on this site concerning the Apple/NBC dispute that I keep thinking about. At 99 cents, Apple would basically price all other video download services out of business. Apple really has no particular need to make money off of video downloads, only to cover their operating costs. Meanwhile, Amazon's Unbox is actually trying to make money, not sell a higher priced item. I doubt it's doing terribly well anyway, but that sort of price cut would pretty much shut them down. And really, who could enter the market and compete with that low price point?

As others have stated, the real money for Apple is in iPods, iPhones, and AppleTV's. Videos truly tie the purchaser to all things Apple. iTunes videos only play on Apple hardware and software, and there is no way to burn it as a DVD Video disc or any other format.

Meanwhile Apple gets to look consumer friendly by pushing for DRM-free music and cheaper video prices.

Sigh, it's a bit of a quandary. As much as I like things to be inexpensive, I also do not like the lack of choice that Apple/iTunes provide.

[Louzer]

Originally Posted by syklee26

.99 for a song is reasonable compared to .99 for TV episodes. you have to understand the difference here. TV episodes are usually after it was broadcast on TV. the value of re-viewing the TV episode is significantly less than listening to a song again.

Well, that's assuming the mass purchasing of shows is from people who saw it, and want to see it again. I'd argue the cost is higher, esp. for such serialized shows as Lost, where, if you missed the episode, you REALLY need to see it to stay up-to-date on all the crap that's happening. That's what you're paying for.

Originally Posted by syklee26

also, cutting into DVD market doesn't necessarily mean TV networks will lose money. They can save some good amount in DVD production, case design, marketing, etc.

for example, right now buying entire 24 episodes of 24 season 6 would be for $44.99. buying DVD at amazon.com or some other web-based vendor would be about $29.99. who da heck would want to buy from iTunes? since web vendors are selling it for about $29.99, it's clear that network is selling it to vendors for no more than $19.99.

You're comparing apple/oranges. Buying season 3 of 24 on the iTMS vs DVD would be stupid (for $$ sake, if nothing else). But you have to wait until June/July for the season's DVD to be released. If you want to ignore the entire season until after its over, then again, OK. But a lot of people might want to actually watch a show while its topical. (Plus you don't have to tell co-workers "Don't talk about any episode of Desparate Housewives! I'm not going to see it until next summer!"

[biggsjm]

So I see a few issues. Yes storage is cheap, but really, we are going to get to a point where between Movies, Music, and TV its just too cumbersome to maintain all of this content at home for the "average" person. As bandwidth throttles up, you might see online storage of purchased content (which begs the question of what happens to it if that service or the owner of the DRM key goes under) and you might see an increase of subscription services (at least for movies and TV).

That being said. . . I think that the cheaper we make some TV (especially reality TV and other content with no real replay value) the better. ,99 is perfect for me to go out and buy an episode of 30 Days or Top Chef and watch it and then I can delete it or lose it without crying too much. On the other hand, I probably wouldn't be as inclined to buy Heroes, the Office, etc. and then throw them away. I want to maintain those. I would be fine with 1.99 for those shows.

Ultimately though, I think this points to the need for a good subscription model for TV and Movies. Music you would purchase a'la carte. But Movies and Music you would "rent" for a service fee. Something like this. . .

1. 3.99 per month - 1 Movie Rental and Unlimited "Catalog" TV (catalog meaning not from the current season)

2. 7.99 per month - 2 Movie Rentals and Unlimited "Catalog" TV (catalog meaning not from the current season)

3. 11.99 per month - 3 Movie Rentals and Unlimited "Catalog" TV (catalog meaning not from the current season)

First Run TV Shows - you would add to your monthly fee for 2.99 per show.


So assume you watch Heroes, The Office, Battlestar Gallactica, CSI, and Top Chef. You want 2 Movies per month too.

Your cost would be - $7.99 + (2.99 x 4) = 19.95 per month.

Now, in reality, the better way to go (assuming you have an apple TV) is to simply DVR the OTA shows and buy only Pay-TV Content so how about . . .

Top Chef, The Wire, Damages, Sleeper Cell, and Dexter. You want 2 Movies per month too.

Your cost would be - $7.99 + (2.99 x 5) = 22.94 per month.

Sounds good to me. . . because I can drop Cable.

[calguy]

But you have to wait until June/July for the season's DVD to be released. If you want to ignore the entire season until after its over, then again, OK. But a lot of people might want to actually watch a show while its topical. (Plus you don't have to tell co-workers "Don't talk about any episode of Desparate Housewives! I'm not going to see it until next summer!"

I am not in a hurry to watch the shows again (except for all of the reruns anyway) and can wait until the end of summer or September for a season. Buying an episode sooner on their new iPod Touch makes sense and they can take the show again on the road or on public transportation on the way to work for safety.

[gilles_deleuze]

Originally Posted by Lafe

There's that word 'cannibalizing' (or if you prefer, 'cannibalising') again.

Like when someone's afraid iPod touch will cannibalize iPhone sales.

I thought cannibals ate their own kind. If that's the definition, I'd like to see
journalists, bloggers, pundits, et al, stop misusing it. A download is not a DVD.
An iPod touch is not an iPhone.

How about "preying upon". That's a creature eating a creature of a different
kind, right? That should work.

"...potentially preying upon the DVD sales."

Sounds better.

If I were a Nigerian eating you, a Dutch, I could argue I was not engaging in cannibalism but merely preying upon you because we are of different nationalities, hence not of the same stuff.

Anywho, the 'own kind' implied above is sales revenue, not the product type.

[TenoBell]

Sigh, it's a bit of a quandary. As much as I like things to be inexpensive, I also do not like the lack of choice that Apple/iTunes provide.

What exactly is the better alternative. Unbox has received NBC content. NBC gets to decide the pricing and tightened he DRM, Amazon isn't fighting them at all.

Apple is dragging the music and television industry kicking and screaming in the directions things are going anyway. The younger generation coming up will be used to downloading their content whether they pay for it or not. Would they rather people spend .99 or torrent the show for free?

[EagerDragon]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

For instance, NBC Universal's just released "Heroes" on DVD is expected to retail in most stores for about $40 for the set of 23 episodes. But under Apple's proposed plan, the same set of episodes would cost less than $23, potentially cannibalizing the DVD sales.

So it is bad if customers pay $23 for 23 episodes, but it is perfectly fine if the DVD hard set sells for 40 and the customers pay 45.77 for the same eposides at the 1.99 rate?

At the NBC rate of 4.99 it would be like 114.77 for the same episodes.

Talks about a download TAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As NBC and other have little to no distribution cost, do not include all the same material as the box set, and the quality of the video is lower with the downloads ........ I would think it should be cheaper to download.

Maybe they are using a new form of math that I do not know yet.

[aegisdesign]

Wow, Apple are really shaking the tree now to see what falls out.

$.99 would be nice - a quarter of what Apple expect us to pay in the UK.

[EagerDragon]

I download very few videos a year, but at .99 I may bite.

[zanshin]

I watch the episodes that are free on iTunes while I eat lunch someplace. I can DVR the episodes in HiDef at home and timeswitch when I want to watch them on the big screen, so I'm not likely to pay $2 to own something I may never watch again.

But for a buck, I can skip the "tasty beverage" to wash down my meal, drink a glass of water, and have something different to view every day.

I'm all for this, and believe the networks would find a very positive response. Investing in DVDs is a real pain after you get about a hundred of them... they take over the shelves in your house, and you rarely watch them more than a couple times. And it's not cheap to press and package all the copies, move them into stores, and then wait to move them back out to a wholesaler when they didn't sell as well as they initially planned.

[Louzer]

Originally Posted by calguy

I am not in a hurry to watch the shows again (except for all of the reruns anyway) and can wait until the end of summer or September for a season. Buying an episode sooner on their new iPod Touch makes sense and they can take the show again on the road or on public transportation on the way to work for safety.

Yeah, but most people (I would assume) don't buy shows on the iTMS for replay value, but for first-play value.

Originally Posted by TenoBell

What exactly is the better alternative. Unbox has received NBC content. NBC gets to decide the pricing and tightened he DRM, Amazon isn't fighting them at all.

Apple is dragging the music and television industry kicking and screaming in the directions things are going anyway. The younger generation coming up will be used to downloading their content whether they pay for it or not. Would they rather people spend .99 or torrent the show for free?

Maybe you didn't realize it, but Apple's shows have restrictive DRM on it as well. No DVD burning, which helps Apple a lot, because then it gives them the oppurtunity to sell their other peripherals.

Just remember, Apple is trying its best to make as much money as it can. Cheaper prices would mean more downloads, which mean more sales of iPods and, hopefully for them, AppleTvs, which means even more money for Apple. They're not doing this because they're concerned about you first and foremost.

Originally Posted by EagerDragon

So it is bad if customers pay $23 for 23 episodes, but it is perfectly fine if the DVD hard set sells for 40 and the customers pay 45.77 for the same eposides at the 1.99 rate?

At the NBC rate of 4.99 it would be like 114.77 for the same episodes.

Talks about a download TAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As NBC and other have little to no distribution cost, do not include all the same material as the box set, and the quality of the video is lower with the downloads ........ I would think it should be cheaper to download.

Maybe they are using a new form of math that I do not know yet.

But maybe if they had variable pricing, it would make sense. Why should Season 3 of 24 cost the same as Season 7? You're pricing it like "Let me buy last season's Office, and it costs me $46. Or I could get the DVD right now, and pay less". Well, then don't buy the download.

But most people don't get the season pass to a TV show AFTER its completed the season. They get the season as its playing, so you're paying not just to download it, but to catch the shows you missed (or just to watch all the shows so you don't have to TiVO them, or even have cable).

But, it appears people here can't seem to get past their "Apple must be the better companyso what they want must be right" ideology. Let's say, with variable pricing, like Apple does with movies, a Tv show costs $4 the first week or two its out, then reduces to $2 for the rest of the year, then $1 when it goes into 'reruns', if you will. That makes more sense then just saying "This 20 minute comedy will cost the same as that high-production value 45 minute sci fi show".

Or paying the same amount for music from 40 years ago as you do for today's top hit record.

But we'll never get any of that. Apple's too stubborn, and the studios are too stubborn (and apple fans will never call out for it, because they drank too much kool-aid).

[SpamSandwich]

For my money DVDs are still a much better value.

However, for a 99 cent TV show, I'd be all over that.

[johnmcboston]

How about something better than 1.99 for music videos. Why are they more than the song to begin with??? This is making money off something they 'throw away' after a few months as it is.

sigh

[TenoBell]

Maybe you didn't realize it, but Apple's shows have restrictive DRM on it as well. No DVD burning, which helps Apple a lot, because then it gives them the oppurtunity to sell their other peripherals.

I'm not arguing for no DRM, but NBC wants even more restrictive DRM than Fairplay.

Just remember, Apple is trying its best to make as much money as it can. Cheaper prices would mean more downloads, which mean more sales of iPods and, hopefully for them, AppleTvs, which means even more money for Apple. They're not doing this because they're concerned about you first and foremost.

Yes I know all of this and nothing I wrote contradicts it. My point is that every other service is rolling over to whatever demands music and television have in respects to downloads. Music and television have no real interest in seeing downloads succeed they would rather protect their physical media sales. But their short sightedness does not see that their future customer base is downloading content more than buying physical media.

My point is that Apple is the only store pushing them to see the future and take advantage of what is inevitably going to happen whether they want it to or not. Yes its true Apple is exploiting the situation to its own advantage that's what a good business is supposed to do.

[TenoBell]

How about something better than 1.99 for music videos. Why are they more than the song to begin with??? This is making money off something they 'throw away' after a few months as it is.

Well with the video you are getting the song. The iPod will play the music from the video as though it is any other song.

[TenoBell]

But maybe if they had variable pricing, it would make sense. Why should Season 3 of 24 cost the same as Season 7? But we'll never get any of that. Apple's too stubborn, and the studios are too stubborn (and apple fans will never call out for it, because they drank too much kool-aid).

I agree variable pricing does make sense. I'm sure Apple knows this. I imagine its all apart of the negotiations. Apple starts by saying we want to sell all shows for .99. Then after negotiating they will likely settle somewhere in the middle with some type of variable pricing structure.

[caliminius]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

What exactly is the better alternative. Unbox has received NBC content. NBC gets to decide the pricing and tightened he DRM, Amazon isn't fighting them at all.

Apple is dragging the music and television industry kicking and screaming in the directions things are going anyway. The younger generation coming up will be used to downloading their content whether they pay for it or not. Would they rather people spend .99 or torrent the show for free?

My problem is that this would drag the TV industry Apple's way only. At 99 cents, Apple can't be making much of a profit. And that is fine for Apple because they make the vast majority of their money from the sales of iPods, iPhones, and AppleTV's. And assuming I don't want to be stuck watching the video at my computer, what options do I have with iTunes Store downloads? Only Apple options: iPods via video out and AppleTV.

Is that what you want? Only one choice in hardware vendors? I don't understand why people seem so quick and eager to surrender their freedom of choice to Apple.

Unbox was just an example. If Apple would only be making a few pennies per episode with the new 99 cent prices, Amazon's only real option is to either try to match their price or just shut down their video download service. And what incentive would any other company have to try to start a download service for TV shows? If the best they could expect is to make 5 cents an episode and start-up costs would be around five million, they would have to sell 100 million episodes before they could see any sort of profit, not even including actual operating costs. I'm pulling those figures out of my butt, but hopefully you can see my point. Since Apple doesn't need to make any profit with TV show downloads, they can simply make it completely unprofitable for anyone to compete with them.

[calguy]

Originally Posted by johnmcboston

How about something better than 1.99 for music videos. Why are they more than the song to begin with??? This is making money off something they 'throw away' after a few months as it is.
sigh

Most videos are throw aways because they are the promo for the moment for the song. That gets you interested in the other songs and maybe the whole album for purchase. If you remember, those videos used to be free on iTunes. But, as long as someone can make a buck, it will be sold.

I haven't heard lately how the sales are going for DRM free songs compared to the .99 version.
I don't think that TV shows will ever be DRM free unless you get the DVD. But, there are some movies that have some kind of DRM on them and they can't be played on certain players.

It seems like it will take many years for all of this to settle out. Technology is moving faster than the creators, distributors, and buyers can keep up with all of the advances and changes.

[Squarepants]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

In an aggressive bid to push more digital video sales, Apple Inc. is reportedly talking to television networks about cutting the price of TV show downloads through iTunes in half.

Citing three people familiar with the proposal, Variety claims that Apple has told networks and studios that it would like to slash the cost of most TV episodes sold via iTunes from the current $1.99 to just $0.99 -- the same price it charges for most music singles.

Apple reportedly believes the move will spur a more than a twofold increase in sales of the digital television downloads, which would effectively offset the impact of the price reduction through higher volumes.

Not surprisingly, the networks have been hesitant to embrace to the concept, which may have also played a part in NBC's decision last week not to renew its current iTunes distribution deal, according to Variety.

Of particular concern for networks is the impact such a move would have of sales of high-margin DVD box sets, and subsequently the networks' partnerships with large DVD resellers such as Wal-Mart, Target and Best Buy.

For instance, NBC Universal's just released "Heroes" on DVD is expected to retail in most stores for about $40 for the set of 23 episodes. But under Apple's proposed plan, the same set of episodes would cost less than $23, potentially cannibalizing the DVD sales.

Still, there are some studios that may be willing to entertain Apple's proposal. Variety speculates, for example, that MTV or A&E may welcome the chance to sell their reality shows at a lower price, particularly since Apple would reward them with greater promotion on iTunes.

An Apple spokesman declined to comment on the report, pointing only to a previous statement that it wouldn't agree to NBC's request for a "dramatic price increase."

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

Apple could increase sales by marketing their US catalogue worldwide. In the UK we have recently been offered TV shows - a fraction of the US content at double the price - and no movies. Sort out the licensing and suddenly the iPod Touch et al become very usable! Oh well - carry on dreaming!

[calguy]

Originally Posted by caliminius

My problem is that this would drag the TV industry Apple's way only. At 99 cents, Apple can't be making much of a profit. And that is fine for Apple because they make the vast majority of their money from the sales of iPods, iPhones, and AppleTV's. And assuming I don't want to be stuck watching the video at my computer, what options do I have with iTunes Store downloads? Only Apple options: iPods via video out and AppleTV.

Is that what you want? Only one choice in hardware vendors? I don't understand why people seem so quick and eager to surrender their freedom of choice to Apple.

Unbox was just an example. If Apple would only be making a few pennies per episode with the new 99 cent prices, Amazon's only real option is to either try to match their price or just shut down their video download service. And what incentive would any other company have to try to start a download service for TV shows? If the best they could expect is to make 5 cents an episode and start-up costs would be around five million, they would have to sell 100 million episodes before they could see any sort of profit, not even including actual operating costs. I'm pulling those figures out of my butt, but hopefully you can see my point. Since Apple doesn't need to make any profit with TV show downloads, they can simply make it completely unprofitable for anyone to compete with them.

Does anyone remember when there were complaints about Microsoft giving away their software to gain hold of a higher percentage of the market? Then they had a strangle hold on anybody else that wanted to enter but couldn't afford it and there was less software innovation because of it. I hope Apple keeps away from that kind of strategy against other competitors. I know, it is a business and may the biggest seller win. But, at what cost to the whole industry in the long run.

[macinthe408]

They're so full of themselves that they can't come to the realization that not only would I buy my 'Heroes' and 'Lost' episodes online, but I would also buy the 'Heroes' and 'Lost' box sets, too.

If they had one ounce of trust in consumers, they'd give most of the people what they mostly want, and that's the freedom to do what we want with things we pay money to buy.

Instead, they spend their energy in trying to prevent Grandma Moses from giving Aunt Tillie a MP3 of Lawrence Welk's Last Waltz--or, rather, in trying to monetize that exchange.

Their energy would be well spent in providing the average consumer with cool ways of accessing media. Instead, they do everything they can to thwart it.

No wonder they're going to disappear in a few years.

Long live Rick Rubin.

[pt123]

Maybe Jobs should drop the price of Disney movies to show the rest of the studios how much better things would be for them? Show the other studios how much more they would be making.

[macinthe408]

Originally Posted by pt123

Maybe Jobs should drop the price of Disney movies to show the rest of the studios how much better things would be for them? Show the other studios how much more they would be making.

That's a good point. Iger has shown maverick-ness before, so it wouldn't be out of the question.

They should also consider placing their brand on p0rn. They'd make a killing.

[TenoBell]

Is that what you want? Only one choice in hardware vendors? I don't understand why people seem so quick and eager to surrender their freedom of choice to Apple.

I do use the iPod and iTunes for digital content. I also buy CDs, DVDs, I use Netflix, I have cable and video on demand, I will also use Joost when it becomes available.

There are many ways to access content. So no I don't believe iTunes will ever be the only option.

[dcorban]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

For instance, NBC Universal's just released "Heroes" on DVD is expected to retail in most stores for about $40 for the set of 23 episodes. But under Apple's proposed plan, the same set of episodes would cost less than $23, potentially cannibalizing the DVD sales.

Yes, because the TV Networks should definitely be in the business of keeping the DVD pressing plants, marketing companies, distributors, trucking companies, retail shops, etc afloat.

Either way, 99 cents is still not cheap enough for these relatively low quality videos. Wake me up when they start distributing in at least 1280x720 resolution.

[pt123]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

For my money DVDs are still a much better value.

Yeah me too. It works on all the DVD players I already have. I don't have to pay for the hard disk space to store it. I can rent. I can share with friends and share theirs.

[pmjoe]

This would be great news, with the handful of shows I watch, it may become cheaper for me to scale back or drop most of my cable service, and get shows from the iTunes Store. One would hope anyhow.

[Sunbow]

Originally Posted by Squarepants

Apple could increase sales by marketing their US catalogue worldwide. In the UK we have recently been offered TV shows - a fraction of the US content at double the price - and no movies. Sort out the licensing and suddenly the iPod Touch et al become very usable! Oh well - carry on dreaming!

Converted to $ using current exchange rate... for convenient comparison

Lost Season 3:

DVD at Amazon.co.uk $90.85
DVD at Amazon.com $38.99

A factor of 2.3 more expensive in the UK on DVD at Amazon

iTunes Music Store UK $66.63
iTunes Music Store US $34.99

A factor of 1.9 more expensive in the UK at the iTunes Music Store

Looks like Apple are, 'relatively', giving us in the UK a good deal. Anyway, I guess it's best to think of it that way when we are being charged around double US prices!

[Sunbow]

Now I've just worked out that with current offers from BA or Virgin, I could fly return to New York from London for under $483 (including airport taxes!) and if I wanted to get 10 or more DVD boxed sets of TV series, I would actually save money buying them in New York on Amazon.com compared with Amazon in the UK!

Wow!

[huerix]

Originally Posted by Lafe

There's that word 'cannibalizing' (or if you prefer, 'cannibalising') again.

Like when someone's afraid iPod touch will cannibalize iPhone sales.

I thought cannibals ate their own kind. If that's the definition, I'd like to see
journalists, bloggers, pundits, et al, stop misusing it. A download is not a DVD.
An iPod touch is not an iPhone.

How about "preying upon". That's a creature eating a creature of a different
kind, right? That should work.

"...potentially preying upon the DVD sales."

Sounds better.

Sorry, but in the finance world, sales cannibalization applies when a new product is a success, but directly and negatively affects the sales of another product. It would not make sense if used in the same way as natural science. Besides, it's fun.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Squarepants

Apple could increase sales by marketing their US catalogue worldwide. In the UK we have recently been offered TV shows - a fraction of the US content at double the price - and no movies. Sort out the licensing and suddenly the iPod Touch et al become very usable! Oh well - carry on dreaming!

That would be nice, but I doubt it's up to Apple. Think about it - if they had those rights, why would they be holding out on it for so long?

Originally Posted by pt123

Maybe Jobs should drop the price of Disney movies to show the rest of the studios how much better things would be for them? Show the other studios how much more they would be making.

Well, Disney might be the one to try it, because I think they control the rights to their entire catalogue worldwide.