or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple pitches $30 a month iTunes TV subscriptions - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple pitches $30 a month iTunes TV subscriptions - report - Page 4

post #121 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Your inability to make a balanced argument is your downfall.

So now you're a therapist too?

So then I need cable plus iTunes subcription services - why?
post #122 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKWalsh4 View Post

And can you watch those channels on a PS3?

Not need because you already have cable service. My point is why pay $360 to subcribe to a TV show when you can get that plus all of which I mention in addition.
post #123 of 186
First, Hulu has repeatedly stated that it is going to a paid content model. If true, this argument doesn't hold water anymore. Second, watching a movie downloaded from iTunes is much more enjoyable and useable.

I remember when cable first started going. The whole selling point was you are paying for commercial free entertainment. Now it seems most cable channels are filled with commercials. Just as many as the Networks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 512ke View Post

And if there are going to commercials, then why pay for what you can get for free simply by clicking on Hulu.com etc?

I don't see the business model for this personally.
post #124 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKWalsh4 View Post

And can you watch those channels on a PS3?

He conveniently failed to include the cost of Blu-ray purchase with the cost of Netlfix for that year. And he failed to mention the poor quality streams from Netflix of Hulu in comparison to iTS DLs. You can’t watch those on even a medium sized TV without it being overly blocky. Finally, he fails to mention that the PS3 can’t be ported around like an iDevice can. If they allow for you to use your subscription from your iDevice then this could be a hit.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #125 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by gumbygo View Post

This all sounds great, except for the fact that Comcast throttles my 20mbps service down to 4mbps if I cancel my TV service from them (and they never tell you this).

I had two technicians come to my house to diagnose why I was getting 4mbps instead of 16-20 (like my co-worker was getting). They quickly told me that Comcast bumps customers down to 4mbps when they cancel their TV service. I signed up for the $16.99 basic cable and my internet jumped back to 20mbps.

Seems that Comcast is doing underhanded things to protect their TV business, and discourage people from getting all their video from the internet.

That's why I think the TV programming, especailly the VOD, should all be considered in any net neutrality rules. The cable company could easily put burdensome caps and bandwidth price tiers in place to protect their VOD services from competition from Apple, Hulu, etc.
post #126 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

He conveniently failed to include the cost of Blu-ray purchase ad the cost of Netlfix for that year. As well as the poor quality streams from Netflix of Hulu in comparison to iTS DLs. You can’t watch those on even a medium sized TV. Finally, he fails to mention that the PS3 can’t be ported around like an iDevice can. If they allow for you to use your subscription from your iDevice then this could be a hit.

Do you sleep under iSheets at night as well? You're selling a "subscription" in the hope and assumption that such iDevice is what somebody actually wants without you having even seen it?
post #127 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

So now you're a therapist too?

So your therapist said the same thing as I did. Interesting!

Quote:
So then I need cable plus iTunes subcription services - why?

No, you need whatever option fits your needs. For some, that is cable, for others is satellite. Yet others want their media on the go (iTS) and others dont mind waiting for a show to be put on DVDs and mailed (Netflix).

Its not about you! It never has been and it never will be. Apple not making a product that fits your needs specifically is not a personal attack on you. Has your therapist also told you that?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #128 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Yes- the iMac SE DVD 1999 that brought entertainment to the desktop with it's inclusion of a DVD drive and The Bug's Life DVD. I didn't need any special cords, adaptors, etc. It was all included. A brilliant machine and concept.
And of course the iPod and OSX.
But why are you derailing the thread? You could have sent me that question privately .

I wasn't trying to derail the thread. I simply wanted to get a perspective of where your logic lies in terms of Apples future plans.

I haven't been here as long as you or read all your threads and comments but I get the impression your not a fan of what Apple are doing right now. So I genuinely wanted to get an insight as to where you think Apple should be going right now.
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
post #129 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple has reportedly reached out to TV networks in recent weeks with a proposed $30-per-month subscription plan to deliver content via iTunes -- a service it hopes to launch in early 2010.

I subscribe to Bell ExpressVu and we have a digital PVR. Our monthly package of home phone + satellite TV + PVR rental + Internet Services comes out to 195 CDN per month. I would LOVE to replace it with:

iTunes.
- Movie rentals
- occasional DVD rips of stuff we own, trashed once we're happy or tired with the movie.
- family vids converted to MP4 - the kids get HOURS of fun watching school plays,
photos and educational podcasts i have ready.
- Movie purchases. I never thought I'd like using it, but the convenience is unparalleled.
I've purchased about 10 titles to dat and am happy with all of them. I am not a cinephile
so I have no 10 thousand dollar home theatre to put super HD content into.
Netflix
- for what we can't get we OCCASIONALLY rent thru mail-order DVD. Monthly tally is 11.00
CDN for all-you-can eat with only one DVD out at a time.
Internet.
- 3rd Party ADSL or DSL provider. Good service can be had for about 30 dollars CDN per month.
Basic Phone
- kept for 911 service and phone connectivity. We're going to drop it to a basic service with no extras or VM (two iPhones in the house).

So the Tally in the end would come out about 1/3 to one half the amount we now pay, and we'll get more use out of our entertainment system to boot.

I get all my CBC content besides live radio through iTunes. I can't possibly catch up with the content I want to see or her, but at least I can search, organize, and prioritise the content I want to see, and what I can't consumer on the AppleTV I carry on the iPhone.

Apple has the strategy perfectly right. They will move onto the print and digital reader world to finish the portfolio and I'll ideally be able to stop receiving my Toronto Star and Globe and Mail subscriptions on physical paper and get them in digital formats. It will be pure profit for them to do so as I want to see the paper layout without paying the 130 dollars per year for the delivery.

Add iTunes subscriptions to that so I can get my individual programs and we're set! Lots of shows have gone off the air that I want to see, despite all the "specialty" channels. I see a new dawn coming, and it will be very interesting to watch.

Anyone else with similar experiences?
post #130 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

So then I need cable plus iTunes subcription services - why?

You are not the only one saying this, but what if the iTunes subscription can replace cable? That is what they are speculating.

FTA:
Quote:
"Such a product would effectively replace a consumer's monthly cable bill (~$85/month) and offer access to current and older episodes of select shows on select channels.

Now I agree that just offering streaming services of the current iTunes content would not be enough, but maybe that isn't what they are planning at all. As I've said before. If Apple wants this service to replace my cable bill, it needs live streaming not streams/downloads available a day later. I'm willing to wait and see if anything comes of this though.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #131 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

You are not the only one saying this, but what if the iTunes subscription can replace cable? That is what they are speculating.

Now I agree that just offering streaming services of the current iTunes content would not be enough, but maybe that isn't what they are planning at all. As I've said before. If Apple wants this service to replace my cable bill, it needs live streaming not streams/downloads available a day later. I'm willing to wait and see if anything comes of this though.

There is overlap, but the cable and iTS network offering are also very different. One is the living room, the other is the computer, living room and mobile devices. One can be manipulated, the other requires a paid for or rented DVR to do so. This service wouldnt fit my needs but I can see how it may be of interest to people that still want to keep their cable TV.

The long term problem with internet TV in any form is that cable companies will inevitably have to make more profit on the internet side of business to make up for the loss of TV revenue while still paying the high lease fees to the networks.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #132 of 186
techstud, give it a rest for a while - step away from the keyboard. Take a tea or coffee break.

I have been saying Apple should offer an iTunes TV Show Subscription service for practically two years now, and now it looks like Apple is trying to lay the groundwork for this, finally. It's a shame we'll have to wait longer over where I live to get what the US might get in Q1 2010, but so be it.

Next step, Apple need to get round to making a television, like I've wanted them to do for a long time now. I like the idea of an all-in-one solution for TV, that would be very simple to setup and use. Time will make this happen me thinks.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #133 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

techstud, give it a rest for a while - step away from the keyboard. Take a tea or coffee break.

I have been saying Apple should offer an iTunes TV Show Subscription service for practically two years now, and now it looks like Apple is trying to lay the groundwork for this, finally. It's a shame we'll have to wait longer over where I live to get what the US might get in Q1 2010, but so be it.

Next step, Apple need to get round to making a television, like I've wanted them to do for a long time now. I like the idea of an all-in-one solution for TV, that would be very simple to setup and use. Time will make this happen me thinks.

Do you even get much of an offering through iTunes? I thought TV and movies weren't offered by iTunes outside the US yet.
post #134 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Do you even get much of an offering through iTunes? I thought TV and movies weren't offered by iTunes outside the US yet.

Indeed Sir, do you have any scraps? I wouldn't get an Apple TV until they bring out the subscription model anyway. So I'll be waiting until 2022 to get mine.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #135 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

There is overlap, but the cable and iTS network offering are also very different. One is the living room, the other is the computer, living room and mobile devices. One can be manipulated, the other requires a paid for or rented DVR to do so. This service wouldnt fit my needs but I can see how it may be of interest to people that still want to keep their cable TV.

The long term problem with internet TV in any form is that cable companies will inevitably have to make more profit on the internet side of business to make up for the loss of TV revenue while still paying the high lease fees to the networks.

Cable TV will eventually die, and they will try to make up that cost through internet fees. Every time these companies lay new fiber optic cable, they are sowing the seeds of their own demise.

I don't see a large disconnect between the computer and the living room anymore, now that you can get internet connected set top boxes. My parents TV is essentially an internet provided solution, it just isn't marketed as such. The TV signals are sent through the phone lines and our modem/router before being sent to a set top box. I'm just waiting for someone like Apple to take that a step further. It is something they could do with a live streaming option to complement their current offerings.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #136 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

So now you're a therapist too?

So then I need cable plus iTunes subcription services - why?

You don't have to, it's your choice but I'd personally like to see Apple expand in this area and I think other people in this forum would also like to see this.

Before the iPhone, smartphones were pretty lame, now take a look at the Market and the choice. There's some serious smartphones out there now definately worthy of a look and alternative to the iPhone.

So why should we have to just accept the current cable offerings. Apple obviously see room for improvement. Even if it's from an integration point of view. I have far too many boxes under my tv set and have invested in a few Apple products which I'd like to see Apple improve upon.

I don't see Sony and Sky doing anything revolutionary right now so I'm pinning my hopes on Apple. I can dream.
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
post #137 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Underhill View Post

I don't see Sony and Sky doing anything revolutionary right now so I'm pinning my hopes on Apple. I can dream.

That's who I see Apple going after: Sky. Imagine automatic bookmark your spot in a program and going back to that point in that one after watching something else. It's things like this that would negate the need for DVR completely. Also, you're not given a choice of 20 good things on at that moment and asked to choose 1, but rather you can pick anything and stream it. I like that idea.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #138 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Cable TV will eventually die, and they will try to make up that cost through internet fees. Every time these companies lay new fiber optic cable, they are sowing the seeds of their own demise.

Not so fast. Comcast has been aggressive rolling out phone services, buying Plaxo, and now in a deal with NBC-Universal. They realize that they cannot remain just a dumb-pipe. Content is key.

They are not acting defensively, they are on offense.
In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Reply
In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Reply
post #139 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

That's who I see Apple going after: Sky.

Now that would be the ideal solution. I was thinking just a few of the smaller fringe Internet channels added to the atv right now but sky would be a killer for me.

I also agree with your all in one tv solution. I mean go into your apple store and they have it all set up in front of your eyes. It just needs to be in one box with some serious networks like sky on board. I suppose it'll ultimately come down to whether some of these companies see their Market share dwindling away whether companies like Apple can offer a life line.
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
post #140 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You do realize that on average people in the US already pay more for that in cable without including any additional purchases they’ve done for DVRs or a monthly DVR rental from their provider.

Yep, I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That a subscription model that did include all of the shows the day after they came out with a quality higher than cable and with the ability to move from your Macs, to your AppleTV to your iDevices would be make that a steal with nothing else coming close to pricing or options.

Except iTunes only offers a fraction of the shows you'd get from your cable/satellite provider, the quality is most certainly NOT higher (about the same, at best), and you'd still need a cable package if you want live content like news, sports, talk shows, etc. — and considering half (if not more) of the tv shows available on iTunes come from the networks you can get for free over the air, that $30/mo would only be gaining you a handful of shows.
post #141 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

I don't understand this at all. Why would I pay $30 a month for something I can get for free? I can go to Hulu.com and watch hundreds of TV shows for free.

Hulu will begin to charge soon for shows as well.
post #142 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

Except iTunes only offers a fraction of the shows you'd get from your cable/satellite provider, the quality is most certainly NOT higher (about the same, at best), and you'd still need a cable package if you want live content like news, sports, talk shows, etc. — and considering half (if not more) of the tv shows available on iTunes come from the networks you can get for free over the air, that $30/mo would only be gaining you a handful of shows.

So because it doesn’t have all the options of another service it shouldn’t exist, even though it gives the consumer several new options these other services don’t? Not fitting your needs doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit others. By your reckoning, the iTS should have never worked for music, movies or TV shows. But it does. Try looking at the whole thing, just the parts you don’t like.

Me, for example, iTS has every show I watch, except some stuff from the UK. I don’t watch cable or sat shows when I have it because I’m constantly on the move. I typically miss them and hate to schedule myself around the TV. I much prefer to have it fit my timeline. I have torrents at this point as the only solution if Hulu doesn’t offer it, or if it’s something that I want with good quality. What part of $30 would not make my TV viewing simplified in your eyes? If this can let me pull a TV show rental from my iPhone while waiting for a plane how would anyone else compete with that? How does that overlap with the cable companies in your eyes?

PS: iTS trumps cable in quality of feeds. Re you really going to argue that 480p MPEG-2 is better than 640p H.264? Are you the one that claims that iTS video is worse than VHS?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #143 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Cable TV will eventually die, and they will try to make up that cost through internet fees. Every time these companies lay new fiber optic cable, they are sowing the seeds of their own demise.

They make a lot of money delivering what normally is cable TV or whatever we download. Whether we subscribe to cable TV or whether we pay to get internet access so we can download the movies, the cable company makes money. If they didn't make money, they could be out of business and then how would we download our movies?
post #144 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe in miami View Post

Not so fast. Comcast has been aggressive rolling out phone services, buying Plaxo, and now in a deal with NBC-Universal. They realize that they cannot remain just a dumb-pipe. Content is key.

They are not acting defensively, they are on offense.

Conventional cable TV will eventually die and cable TV providers will try to increase internet rates to make up for the income shortfall. That is all I'm saying. They can also try to adapt as you suggest Comcast is doing.

A frightened puppy will bite you. While offensive in appearance, it is truly a defensive maneuver. I don't know a lot about the situation in the US, but here in Canada, cable providers appear to be resisting the change and your statement about Comcast doesn't convince me that it is any different down south.

If they were truly on the offensive, they would be the ones bringing TV over internet to the masses.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #145 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCJ001 View Post

If you get it for free, you'll watch what they give you to see.

If you pay for it, you'll watch what you want to see.

At the moment, I'm pretty much watching what I want to see with ad supported Hulu. That may well change, nothing is set in stone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

From a business standpoint, I think subscriptions are the only way to successfully offer TV Show rentals that are ad free. What pricing model would you use for TV Show rentals?

From what I understand, the networks would net more renting at $0.50 an episode than they would if the same person watched the ad-supported version on TV. It's certainly a lot more than they would get through Hulu. Even if apple takes half rather than 30% because of infrastructure costs and the low price, that's still sitting pretty good against ad-based TV. So really, a $0.99 per episode rental is a realistic business proposition, if they're afraid $0.50 would undervalue their content, even though they generally get less through their primary income. I might even consider that. I'm generally not paying $1.99 just to watch an episode that I probably will never watch again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wattsup View Post

Well, that report just says that some of the content will remain advertising supported (or "free") but that Hulu will be offering more payed-content in the future. No one really knows when this will happen or even what percentage will be payed but you can pretty much be assured that they won't continue to offer "free" content unless they can extract some form of "payment" from the viewers.

Maybe, there isn't any proof of that.
post #146 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123 View Post

They make a lot of money delivering what normally is cable TV or whatever we download. Whether we subscribe to cable TV or whether we pay to get internet access so we can download the movies, the cable company makes money. If they didn't make money, they could be out of business and then how would we download our movies?

Cable TV and internet are supplied through the same cable. Most internet offerings are unlimited, so your internet usage doesn't change how much they get paid (right now).

This is simplest with equations.

Current income = internet fees + cable tv fees
Future income = internet fees

If you want current and future income to remain the same (their costs won't necessarily go down) where is the lost income from not selling cable TV to the masses anymore going to come from? Now there are other potential sources of income, they could provide the internet TV, or they could diversify, but denying a potential increase in internet rates seems short sighted.

From another perspective. There are ISPs that do not provide cable TV, will they still be charging the same fees when everyones bandwidth use increases due to them getting their TV over the internet?
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #147 of 186
cable sucks
i have 76 channels watch only about 10
too bad congress doesn't let us do ala cart

the key is content and when you drop cable they up the price of the broadband
they are looking close to netflix, apple, hulu etc

but i got to have dvr, backup and storage etc
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #148 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonBee View Post

So the Tally in the end would come out about 1/3 to one half the amount we now pay, and we'll get more use out of our entertainment system to boot.

I think this is actually part of the problem. If we're paying less, then some companies are earning less. And they'll fight to the death to stop that happening.
(edit: and now I just read a few people saying the same just above... it pays to get to the END of the thread before responding!!!!)

Which is why we're seeing these older companies who "don't get it"... but what they don't get is how to keep their revenue.

For the change to happen, we probably need to work on everyone paying the same as they do now (with some shuffling of WHERE the money is going)... but getting a much more useful service for them. Perhaps eventually cable & dsl bills will TRIPLE, but the TV services will be much cheaper (ie AppleTV subscriptions cheap, or cheap cableTV, etc)

... and where does that leave Apple? Certainly NOT with a product which lets most people replace their cableTV with something just as good (or better) at 1/3 the overall price. (Unfortunately!).

... my best guess - Apple should start with any content producers that don't own cable delivery networks and give them a better distribution deal (for now) than they currently get. They'll be happy with that, and it'll still be cheaper for us as the cable companies won't respond immediately. As the cable companies start charging more for us using 20 times the bandwidth than we used to, Apple will have to renegotiate with the producers to bring the prices down.
post #149 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Cable TV and internet are supplied through the same cable. Most internet offerings are unlimited, so your internet usage doesn't change how much they get paid (right now).

This is simplest with equations.

Current income = internet fees + cable tv fees
Future income = internet fees

If you want current and future income to remain the same (their costs won't necessarily go down) where is the lost income from not selling cable TV to the masses anymore going to come from? Now there are other potential sources of income, they could provide the internet TV, or they could diversify, but denying a potential increase in internet rates seems short sighted.

From another perspective. There are ISPs that do not provide cable TV, will they still be charging the same fees when everyones bandwidth use increases due to them getting their TV over the internet?

Well, not so fast. If we the customers aren't paying for the cable TV fees because we don't buy the content, the cable companies wouldn't buy from the content providers, right? Their cost would be reduced substantially. It doesn't seem to make much sense for them to pay for the content if the customers aren't buying. We the customers would just be buying the content directly and paying for it separately.
post #150 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

.... you'd still need a cable package if you want live content like news, sports, talk shows, etc. and considering half (if not more) of the tv shows available on iTunes come from the networks you can get for free over the air, that $30/mo would only be gaining you a handful of shows.

News comes up a lot. Perhaps you watch more live news than I do?

I'd like the AppleTV to give me a news program that looks more like a DVD menu of choices (or "iTunes Extras"). While I'm reading a choice of article headings the news presenter might be summarising tonights news. Let me click each time the presenters says something I want to know more about... they could offer twice as much news and I could watch what interests me in less time (while still seeing the broad overview). It's not live but it's VERY convenient. And some stories could link to more in-depth "specials" directly (or mark them to download when available, or with tomorrow's news)

I agree with what you say about Free-to-air. I still think Apple needs to find a way of offering "free-to-download" shows that insert commercials (just like FTA) - probably where the advertisers selectively chose which kinds of viewers they want seeing their ads (and thus we see less ads but they're more appropriate).
post #151 of 186
Maybe this is what that server farm in NC was all about?

"Earlier this year, Apple selected Maiden, N.C., as the location for its $1 billion server farm. The exact purpose of that data center has not been stated."

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...m_project.html
post #152 of 186
Why do people think that a la carte will be cheaper?

Imagine a world where all we had was those all-you-can-eat smorgasbords with 200 different dishes (and some premium content like a seafood bar for those who want it).

If a consumer said "I don't eat 3/4 of the dishes available here... we should be able to go to a restaurant and chose JUST what we want to eat. That'd be 1/4 the cost!", we'd see it pretty clearly that it's not going to happen.

A la carte is usually more expensive unless you're a very small eater. Sure we never ate 3/4 of the smorgasbord, but everyone ate some share, and everyone ignored some others, the specific choices aren't important.

Usually people totally disagree with me when I say this... but none have argued well (to me) why that model doesn't fit.
post #153 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

I think this is actually part of the problem. If we're paying less, then some companies are earning less. And they'll fight to the death to stop that happening.

Don't be so sure you will be paying less. The shows we watch cost money. A show becomes successful, the cast demands more money, the cost for the show goes up. Pro athletes make more money, the cost to the networks cost more, the cost is passed on. Our cable bill goes up. We the customers have one entity to direct our anger at, the cable company. If we buy our content and the delivery (broadband) separately, will we pay less or will we just pay differently (couple of different bills)?
post #154 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

Why do people think that a la carte will be cheaper?

Imagine a world where all we had was those all-you-can-eat smorgasbords with 200 different dishes (and some premium content like a seafood bar for those who want it).

If a consumer said "I don't eat 3/4 of the dishes available here... we should be able to go to a restaurant and chose JUST what we want to eat. That'd be 1/4 the cost!", we'd see it pretty clearly that it's not going to happen.

A la carte is usually more expensive unless you're a very small eater. Sure we never ate 3/4 of the smorgasbord, but everyone ate some share, and everyone ignored some others, the specific choices aren't important.

Usually people totally disagree with me when I say this... but none have argued well (to me) why that model doesn't fit.

I agree with your saying. There are plenty on this forum that dont like idea simply because they dont watch enough TV or watch TV in a certain way to suit their needs. For them the subscription model doesnt work. Likely the iTS model doesnt work. I can see how this would fill a void that is currently not met by anyone.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #155 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

Why do people think that a la carte will be cheaper?

Imagine a world where all we had was those all-you-can-eat smorgasbords with 200 different dishes (and some premium content like a seafood bar for those who want it).
...
Usually people totally disagree with me when I say this... but none have argued well (to me) why that model doesn't fit.

The difference that separates it from buffets is that the cable networks (MTV, ESPN, Discovery, etc.) get paid a per-subscriber fee, whether or not a given subscriber actually watches anything on those networks. Don't watch the MTV networks? Too bad, some of your money does go to them even if you don't watch it. With a buffet, if you don't take the eggs, the chicken farmer doesn't get a specific cut from everyone whether or not they took the eggs, they get money for eggs actually sold, not for eggs sold + a specific cut from everyone's checks.
post #156 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So because it doesn’t have all the options of another service it shouldn’t exist, even though it gives the consumer several new options these other services don’t? Not fitting your needs doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit others. By your reckoning, the iTS should have never worked for music, movies or TV shows. But it does. Try looking at the whole thing, just the parts you don’t like.

It should certainly exist, just at a more realistic price given iTunes' limited selection comprised mostly of shows available over the air for free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Me, for example, iTS has every show I watch, except some stuff from the UK. I don’t watch cable or sat shows when I have it because I’m constantly on the move. I typically miss them and hate to schedule myself around the TV. I much prefer to have it fit my timeline. I have torrents at this point as the only solution if Hulu doesn’t offer it, or if it’s something that I want with good quality. What part of $30 would not make my TV viewing simplified in your eyes? If this can let me pull a TV show rental from my iPhone while waiting for a plane how would anyone else compete with that? How does that overlap with the cable companies in your eyes?

You're right. This would be a great service for people who only watch the hundred or so shows available on iTunes (many of which are lingering episodes of shows that have been cancelled), don't mind waiting an hour for their download before they can begin watching, never want to see a show when it airs, don't want the freedom of channel surfing, and never want to watch sports, news or talk shows. Because realistically, to justify the price, most people would have to ditch their cable/dish altogether and make this their only source of television.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

PS: iTS trumps cable in quality of feeds. Re you really going to argue that 480p MPEG-2 is better than 640p H.264? Are you the one that claims that iTS video is worse than VHS?

I thought we were talking about HD content. What the hell is 640p? Regardless, The Daily Show on iTunes doesn't look any better than it does on cable.
post #157 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

It should certainly exist, just at a more realistic price given iTunes' limited selection comprised mostly of shows available over the air for free.

Youre looking at from what you would want, not the business model itself. I think $30 is low balling what Apple could charge for a service that allows for TV shows to easily DLed and viewed on Macs, AppleTVs and iDevices. No cable company can compare to me being able to grab unlimited shows away from the living room. The best solution for that is TiVo which I can copy the MOEG-2 to my Mac and then convert to MPEG-4. That is a PITA that people arent willing to go through. I know how to do it and I still dont want that rigamarole.

Quote:
You're right. This would be a great service for people who only watch the hundred or so shows available on iTunes (many of which are lingering episodes of shows that have been cancelled), don't mind waiting an hour for their download before they can begin watching, never want to see a show when it airs, don't want the freedom of channel surfing, and never want to watch sports, news or talk shows. Because realistically, to justify the price, most people would have to ditch their cable/dish altogether and make this their only source of television.

There are 200 shows on iTS. Netflix has a lot more, but they have nothing current so they cant compete with that until the optical disc is printed after the season ends. Cable and Sat can only play when the networks air it, but then you have the issue of watching it on the go again. This would fill a void that isnt currently addressed by anyone accept maybe the torrent and newsgroup users, but even that requires VisualHub/iSquint to convert to MPEG-4 for iDevice use. Plus, its not legal and just messy all around. Like most people, I will pay for convenience.

The bottom line is, if you dont need you dont get it. Just like with all products. There is no one else that can fill this void besides Apple. If you can tell me who else can do and how they can do it you be able to make yourself wealthy. I just spent $50 for a couple seasons of a show I watched in a couple weeks last month because I couldnt find it on torrents or Hulu, and Netflix and cable/sat are not options.. I could have saved $20 with such a subscription, even though I would probably still wouldnt have opted for it.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #158 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123 View Post

Well, not so fast. If we the customers aren't paying for the cable TV fees because we don't buy the content, the cable companies wouldn't buy from the content providers, right? Their cost would be reduced substantially. It doesn't seem to make much sense for them to pay for the content if the customers aren't buying. We the customers would just be buying the content directly and paying for it separately.

Yes you have a point. My claims may be somewhat exaggerated. My major point is that as we increase our bandwidth use collectively, the ISPs will likely charge more. Internet TV will likely be a major source of increased bandwidth use. Also taking away a major bread bringer like cable TV would be far from painless, even if it didn't result in losses.... there would definitely be a reduction in profits. Sorry for sensationalizing how bad it would be for ISPs/Cable providers, I think I just wants certain ones here in Canada to fail.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #159 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

and all content providers are worried that advertising revenue could decrease if live viewership shrinks.

Surely the content providers do not care - it's the cable networks who put the advertising in isn't it - not the people who make the programme?

My background is in theatre production, and I've thought for quite a while that the whole area of film/tv production needs a major revamp - at the moment the content we see is too beholden to the distributor/cable-network and hence the advertiser.

If a TV programme costs US$500K an episode (eg: ITV's "wire in the blood" was reported as GBP750K for a 1.5 hour 'episode') then a veiwership of 5M people wont attract enough advertisers to cover the cost for the network - but if 1/20th that number are willing to pay $2 you can still make it - the production company makes the same money either way, but with the latter there is content on offer that cable networks and advertisers would censor - oh I mean 'not find profitable'. The hurdle to overcome is the investment - it takes a lot of $$$'s to get good programming started, and cable networks offer that guarantee for 18-20 episodes a season.

With a real revolution in content distribution and a living room device to access it globally (not just domestic USA) then people looking for scripted entertainment/drama and independent content producers (not just myspace amateurs) could flock to it.

I don't see how any of this helps those looking for F1, Football, Basketball, BigBrother or any other live action entertainment - which let's face it - is where cable really makes its money - I know in Australia they only provide any non-sport programming because of government regulation (and the patronising but obligatory 'but honest honey I didn't just get it for me - you and the kids can watch it too').
post #160 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by arthurba View Post

Surely the content providers do not care - it's the cable networks who put the advertising in isn't it - not the people who make the programme?

I think they do care. The less advertising revenue the network gets, the less money the network is going to want to offer the production company when the next season comes up. If the owner of the show isn't the network, they'll have to finance the shortfall until they make up for it with Internet revenue.

Quote:
If a TV programme costs US$500K an episode (eg: ITV's "wire in the blood" was reported as GBP750K for a 1.5 hour 'episode') then a veiwership of 5M people wont attract enough advertisers to cover the cost for the network - but if 1/20th that number are willing to pay $2 you can still make it - the production company makes the same money either way, but with the latter there is content on offer that cable networks and advertisers would censor - oh I mean 'not find profitable'. The hurdle to overcome is the investment - it takes a lot of $$$'s to get good programming started, and cable networks offer that guarantee for 18-20 episodes a season.

I think it's a very interesting idea, but I wonder if there are psychological roadblocks. What you're describing isn't that far from the direct to video idea, where content is supported directly by the end user, the theatrical and network channels are bypassed, but that has a stigma attached to it. Not only that, you have to somehow build up to an act or reputation that gets such a following. Joss Whedon was able to do just that with Dr. Horrible, but he's had a long TV and movie writing career behind him that gets him enough recognition to do that.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple pitches $30 a month iTunes TV subscriptions - report