Apple pitches $30 a month iTunes TV subscriptions - report - Page 3

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning a music subscription service. Apple's looking into a TV subscription service (supposedly). I'm guessing you already knew this but chose to ignore it to make your "point."

On topic, this would have to provide HD content (1080, not 720) for me to really get into it.

Moaning? Isn't that what you do when decribing how WiFi doesn't work on your iPhone?
FYI- It's about subscription entertainment- be it music, movies, or whatever.

Funny how you mention the word subscription TWICE yet can't make a connection?

link please ?

Do any cable or sat companies offer 1080p content? I believe Apples SD and HD are better than, at least, cable companies SD and HD, respectively. The use of H.264 instead of MPEG-2 is also in Apples favour here in that they can ramp up quality with greater ease and with less overhead. Since such a service would be competing more directly with cable and sat I think that the best we can expect is 720p. 1080p would be over 2x the data and since its not meant to compete with TV Shows in box sets after the season airs so much as when its currently airing there is little reason for Apple to go this route at this time, though I hope Im wrong. I do hope the next AppleTV has the HW capabilities to push 1080p even if the iTS doesnt offer it.

hello abc

http://abc.go.com/

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...hulu+2010+paid

So you're saying the feasibility of music subscription and a tv subscription are linked? I don't see them being equal.

I actually think Apple should be offering the "Next Generation" of Free (commercial!) TV, like Hulu has been trying. Let people download a TV show and then add a small number of commercials customised specifically to the viewer (their interests, location etc).

Give us a choice to
# watch our shows, for free, with commercials
# a cheap subscription to reduce to just a couple of commercials in the whole show
# a premium subscription, or rental, or purchase - for no ads.

If the Boston NBC affiliate (for example) doesn't go for the model, then Apple can always put in EVERY Boston commercial as if it was a regular DVR (and let people skip those ads like a DVR too).

This kind of thing
* keeps the advertisers in the loops
* minimises wasted advertising of tampons to men, etc.
* allows a show to start "immediately" by showing a pre-loaded 30second ad while iTunes caches the show.
* gets new viewers to older series
* helps TV networks keep viewers who leave arc-based shows by showing episodes in order
* has immediate ratings feedback for advertisers, including click-thru and interactive marketing to people who click "tell me more".
* allows ads for shops in the local area (<2km etc) which are normally impossible in a big market
* and most importantly - 1/4 the ads but still free, immediate, convenient.

I think there's a huge business model for it - but it's a difficult step from current models to this one.

Enjoy it while you can. Executives at Hulu have already said that they will be transitioning to a payed service in the near future. Thus, content that is either with limited commercial interruptions or "free" will become less common within the next year or two.

Here is one reference on this change (but there are a lot of reports spread all over the internet about this coming change):

http://www.cinematical.com/2009/10/2...entertainment/

I've only heard of cable\\sat offering 1080i. I wasn't so much saying that 1080 is going to happen, more that 720 wouldn't be enough to pry me from cable.

So i guess your not in favour of an Apple monthly subscription plan then?

Has there ever been a product/idea, either rumoured or brought to market, by Apple that has actually pleased you? Pray do tell, i'm intrigued.

No.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...o_payonly.html

Can't you understand that different industries would benefit differently from a subscription service? That said, I have always liked the concept of Zune pass, but it obviously isn't for everyone.

Edit: However if you want to down the route of arguments with no merit, isn't it a little hypocritical of you to call out the people in favor of this and against the zune pass when in fact you have essentially stated the same thing? You are in fact in favor of one subscription model (zune pass) and against another (itunes tv shows) too.

To those who have said Apple needs all the networks and cable show ... I disagree.

I think it's possible for Apple to target just one or two niches, to start with, just to prove the model. There are people who will pay to get more of their niche - for example a deal with Discovery & National Geographic could be very appealing to those who love documentaries. Likewise if they could get syfy, and then other networks to throw in their scifi offerings, there's a group of people who would consider that all they need.

Of course, just getting Showtime to make all of this month's movies available for their regular subscription price (but without the base cable package!) would also be appealing to many people. Perhaps enough to dump cable.

BTW:
Remember that a la carte restaurant is usually more expensive than a smorgasbord - even though we don't eat all the food on the smorgasbord.

Not at all - I am against both (but if they are offered I would simply opt out for them) yet find it down right hilarious, as you have described, the hypocritical thinking that permeates this board at times.

and your a ray of sunshine kinda guy ???

explain to me what the itune's gives us we don't already have for free .
http://abc.go.com/

peace
9

I get why they do it, but it's a very inelegant approach. There should be an option in the preferences to opt out of one or the other; methinks the number of people who actually watch full episodes/movies on their handheld devices is severely limited anyhow.

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 .

Apparently you don't know about the thousands of free podcasts that are available through Apple TV. It's really a great reference for news, information, and special interest content. The quality of the video and content varies, but there is easily enough stuff there to fill up a spare hour or two each and every day. Unfortunately (for some), it's mostly infotainment so you're not going to find last night's broadcast of American Idol as a free podcast.

dude
did you read the article ?

hulu will always be free
always
you pay for it by watching ads

what will change is when the INTERNATIONAL MODEL ROLLS OUT
HULU will introduce paid content or link directly over amazon paid content service
>>>>>>>>>>>
anyway lets go watch fast forward right now http://abc.go.com/

peace

9

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.

Teckstud, you're running the risk of derailing the thread yet again! GROAN.

Man, can't you please take a bit of a break, and go contemplate why there are so many diverse folks here whom you seem to get into constant arguments with, or on whose sensibilities you so obviously grate? I mean, seriously, does it not occur to you at all?!

Obviously he enjoys it. But each self-aggrandizing post proclaiming his intellectual superiority by intentionally antagonizing others only exposes his irrelevance.

He wrote in a thread yesterday that he gets attacked here more than any other poster. In classic Teckstudian logic he fails to see why this occurs.

True. But it won't seamlessly stream around to a bunch of devices, including your phone.

Dude, I have absolutly no idea what you are talking about. Take a chill pill please -fast. There are about 4-6 "diverse" folks here that want to negate whatever I say and they derail the thread with their "Apple way or the highway" mentality. Look in the mirror man. You can highlight my name all you want- as you derail the thread not me.

I am a skittle rainbow. Please excuse me for when I gave out about the fact that I've got 2 iPhones with no WiFi.

I won 't even get into what you spew on year after year with your 11,000 plus posts attacking people left and right because you think you're Steve Jobs personal assistant.

dude, considering I was apparently still typing while you were hitting send, no I didn't have a chance to read it. Next time I'll know better.

See- I'm not the only one stating I won't pay for subscription just because Apple may offer it. We know who on here will buy it and anything else Apple offers simply because it's APple offering it.

After giving it some more thought, even if the $30/mo gave you unlimited access to all of the shows available on itunes (which it probably wouldn't), I don't think iTunes has enough non-network shows to justify a $30/mo pricepoint.

You do realize that on average people in the US already pay more for that in cable without including any additional purchases theyve done for DVRs or a monthly DVR rental from their provider. 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. Dont even mention Netflix, because youre talking about Flash-based streaming or delayed optical media for TV Show seasons that have come and gone.

presumably they are working on offering more content before this is released?

$30/month= $360 a year which will buy a PS3- gaming device, blu-ray player , wireless, with netflix and hulu.

Only you would defend this concept. What if you want to watch CNN? CSPAN? PBS?
Not everbody want to watch just reruns of Married With Children.

Agree. 99 HD TV show rentals would be nice. I have no interest in owning TV shows.

The subscription model wouldn't allow me to drop my cable entirely. As others have pointed out, you'd be missing live TV (news, sports, etc). Some of that I could get over the air, but then I'd need to buy a TiVo or something to be able to record that. The other major part that would be missing is the movies that a lot of the cable stations play. I assume that $30/month wouldn't include those.

So I could drop my cable one notch to Comcast's cheapest digital package (so I can still get the live stuff), but that would save me only around $20-25/month, I think. I could do that, but then I'd be paying twice for the bulk of my TV programming (the major networks) because I'd still be paying Comcast for basic cable and Apple's subscription would cover many of the same stations. I don't see a subscription that includes the basic cable stations as being viable.

If Apple really wanted to make inroads against the cable companies, they should be going after the higher tier channels and offer them a-la-carte or in bundles. For example, Comcast kept moving the SciFi Channel into higher and higher tiers knowing that people who liked that programming would be willing to buy into a whole higher tier just to get that one channel. If Apple offered it as a channel subscription for $5/month, I could get the 2-3 channels from that tier that I want and then drop down to a lower Comcast tier (saving $30/month on my cable bill).

They could similarly go after other dedicated movie, sports, or specialty channels that Comcast uses to force people into higher tiers which have 3-5 good channels and then a bunch of garbage channels. I'm mean seriously, just how many weather channels do I need, anyway? It's like having to buy a whole album of crappy songs just to get the one or two good ones.

Then you act like an adult and pay for cable or sat, or hook up a digital antenna for PBS. Your position that it shouldnt exist at all because iTunes cant offer them is strawman, at best. If you want to take that stance, then Netflix streaming shouldnt exist because it cant offer shows right away like Hulu. But they both have their pros and cons. Your inability to make a balanced argument is your downfall.

And can you watch those channels on a PS3?

One would think that to be a safe assumption, but most people judge Apple products based on the here and now (ie. an Apple tablet would obviously be running the current version of iPhone OS /sarcasm). Offering streaming of all current iTunes TV content wouldn't really be worthwhile, so I don't think that is what they are doing. I'm hoping for an all out cable replacement, but expecting less.