or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple tables push for TV subscriptions on iPad, seeks 99 cent episodes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple tables push for TV subscriptions on iPad, seeks 99 cent episodes

post #1 of 90
Thread Starter 
Apple had high hopes of delivering an all-you-can-eat buffet of television shows in the form of a subscriptions service by the time its iPad hits the market next month, but opposition from networks has forced the company to adopt Plan B: a push towards lower pricing for a la carte downloads.

In an updated version of its report on Apple's scrambles to secure last-minute content licensing deals for the iPad, The Wall Street Journal cites people familiar with the matter as saying that electronics maker is now asking that television networks agree to drop the price of their episodes to $0.99, down from $1.99 and $2.99.

The concession on Apple's part comes after the majority balked at a more ambitious attempt by company to court its largest network partners into an all-inclusive subscription service, which would have offered iPad users broad access to the catalogs of many of their favorite programs for a set monthly fee, according to the paper.

Still, Apple's struggling to achieve the networks' approval, even with its pared back strategy. People speaking anonymously to the Journal say the content providers are weary of the strategy, fearing it could ultimately hurt their business and jeopardize "the tens of billions of dollars in subscription fees they are paid by cable and satellite companies for their traditional TV networks."

In response, Apple is reportedly trying to convince the networks to make the gamble, arguing that if the price cuts prove successful, it could unlock a completely new market for digital distribution and consumption that could prove just as lucrative, if not more, than their existing deals with cable operators.

"It's also possible TV companies could offer access to their shows on the iPad through applications that would stream the videos, rather than selling them through iTunes," the report adds. "But streaming is often limited by a tangle of licenses between producers and TV networks."

Another potential hurdle Apple faces revolves around the iPad's intentional lack of support for Adobe's Flash streaming media technology, which many content partners use to showcase their multimedia content and serve online ads.

On the bright side, Apple has reportedly made much-need headway with its eBook strategy for the tablet device, as the Journal cites more people familiar with the matter as saying that all of the largest book publishers are prepared to offer catalogs that rival those of Amazon's Kindle and Barnes & Noble's Nook platforms by the time the iPad ships on April 3rd.
post #2 of 90
I'd buy that for a buck! I'd rather pay per episode than have a subscription.
iPad News, App Reviews, and More: iPadNewsUpdates.com
Reply
iPad News, App Reviews, and More: iPadNewsUpdates.com
Reply
post #3 of 90
This isn't about the money, it's all about control. The networks give away their shows now - but they fear the Apple hegemony will turn them from drivers into passengers in the shift to IP based delivery.
post #4 of 90
I'd rather pay per episode too, rather than have a subscription.

But... once I cross a certain point, lets say $20 worth of a-la-carte options, turn into a buffet subscription so I can watch anything I want.

Oh and Apple, don't even think about making us be aware of which network or studio is involved to keep count. We just want the content and couldn't care less about monitoring the quota we use from each network or movie studio.
post #5 of 90
If Apple had the same attitude as the tv networks, they would have never released the iPhone out of fear that it would cannibalized iPod sales. Heck, nor would they have released the Mac out of fear of cannibalizing the Apple II.
post #6 of 90
Anyone who thinks Apple is trying to negotiate this TV Show subscription for the iPad is naive. They are using the iPad argument as a trojan horse for their TV set. Coming later.
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 #7 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElmCityWeb View Post

I'd buy that for a buck! I'd rather pay per episode than have a subscription.

I agree with You!

Giovanni B. Saccone
Creativity is just connecting things (Steve Jobs)
> > > My wEb SiTe < < <

Reply

Giovanni B. Saccone
Creativity is just connecting things (Steve Jobs)
> > > My wEb SiTe < < <

Reply
post #8 of 90
Notice Apple haven't been shouting about Text Books, this is confusing.
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 #9 of 90
I wish I could rent TV shows from iTunes. I can't see filling my bookshelves with hard drives to store hi def tv shows and having more time capsules to back up my purchases. HD file sizes have to really add up over time.
post #10 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The concession on Apple's part comes after the majority balked at a more ambitious attempt...

No offense intended but what is this concession you speak of?

Apple wanted to offer subscription TV (not knowing the details I certainly can't comment on how successful I think it would be) and NOW instead Apple is asking the studios to DROP the prices of their episodes from a LAUGHABLE $2 - $3 each to a somewhat less OFFENSIVE price of $1 each.

It's not as if the studios have to pick one because they turned down the other...

The can continue to destroy all hopes of the public embracing digital delivery... Mostly I feel, because they are trying to do everything they can to prop up BluRay as the next cash cow. Something that I think is a folly at best.

Don't get me wrong I wanted BluRay to win over HD-DVD but at the end of the day I'm still looking at a collection of 600+ movie DVDs and 4 shelves full of TV shows and I'm not going to do it again and THEN again when they finally figure out digital distribution is the way to go.

Also something these STUDIOS need to be reminded of...

The longer they put INSANE prices on TV content the more people will find ALTERNATIVE SOURCES to obtain the TV shows that they forgot to DVR.

Sorry but the studios are putting FAR to high a value on the crap they are producing... and the ratings reflect it. An entire generation (or 2) have / are growing up NOT having TV as their primary (only) source of entertainment. Just wait another 5 or 6 years and the studios will be SCREAMING for us to PLEASE buy their content for .79 per episode...

TV shows are NOT like wine... they do not become more valuable with age... they simply get forgotten as people move on to the next thing.

Fools... I guess they get what they deserve...
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #11 of 90
Damn it. I was really hoping for a TV subscription so I could get rid of my Comcast boxes. I do tend to buy a lot of my favorite series on DVD or BluRay, but there are many more shows I enjoy to watch but don't want to keep forever. I doubt $1 a show will even come close to what I'm currently paying, especially since that pricing is probably for SD and not HD.
post #12 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Another potential hurdle Apple faces revolves around the iPad's intentional lack of support for Adobe's Flash streaming media technology, which many content partners use to showcase their multimedia content and serve online ads.

This is GREAT!

I'm hoping that I can set things up to download every episode of every show I like, so that it will download ASAP into my iTunes library.

It will be like a DVR, but better! And at 99 cents, it is very affordable!
post #13 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Notice Apple haven't been shouting about Text Books, this is confusing.

I agree...

Either this story is portraying TV shows with far too much importance... Very possible...

OR

Apple is one screwed up company...

Look the iPad isn't HD... it isn't even conducive to watching TV and yet somehow Apple had this MAJOR PLAY that would have put the iPad as the centerpiece of their TV subscription plan?!?!

Sorry but that's just about as bad as Steve trying to explain why the newest iPod sensation only supports MONO.

Sorry... but either Apple has really and truly lost it.. or this story is trying to make the iPad into something that it was never built to be. Can you imagine Apple trying to sell a subscription service to the studios...

Quote:
"Oh, HD you say?!?!?! Ummm well... ahh ... check THIS out, the iPad is SO THIN!"

Yea... Selling a subscription service with an SD ONLY device is almost as stupid as trying to sell a subscription service on todays Kindle ..
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #14 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerseymac View Post

I wish I could rent TV shows from iTunes. I can't see filling my bookshelves with hard drives to store hi def tv shows and having more time capsules to back up my purchases. HD file sizes have to really add up over time.

I sure can! I'll buy lots of terabyte drives to store all the HD content. And more Time Capsules!

The User Experience will be unmatched!

TIVO is going to DIE.
post #15 of 90
Quote:
Apple tables push for TV subscriptions on iPad, seeks 99 cent episodes


WHAT??!!!

Screw that!!! Try 99¢ to rent the season!


I got Netflix, a PS3/$99 Roku and we can stream as much as we want for a mere $8 and change a month.

Our family watches 2 movies before the kids go off to bed and then the two of us watch one TV show each before falling off to sleep.

To do that with Apple would be about $16-$18 a day or about $600 a month AND it won't carry nearly everything like neutral Netflix does because Steve Jobs is Disney's/ABC's largest shareholder, so there is a conflict of interest.


There is a reason why TV shows have advertising, it's because in general people can't or won't pay to watch TV shows. If Apple wants to sell a lot of iPads, they need to get cheap content. Not expensive content.

So at 99¢ a TV show the iPad is not cost effective and worth it's high price, but it may make a good occasional use system. A parent needing to occupy children away from home will gladly pay 99¢ for a Hanna Montana or Barney show on a 3G iPad to get a break. I think this is what Apple is aiming for along with the closed nature of the iPad.

I've said it before and say it again, the primary market for the iPad is young children as a entry level/early learning and entertainment computing appliance.
post #16 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post


Sorry... but either Apple has really and truly lost it.. or this story is trying to make the iPad into something that it was never built to be. Can you imagine Apple trying to sell a subscription service to the studios...

The iPad does so support HD. It is 768 which is HD. More FUD from a Hater...
post #17 of 90
I'm all for lowering the prices of TV episodes, but aside from that, we just bought a season pass for season 20 of "Law and Order" for $25.99 which got us 16 episodes so far, which works out to $1.63 per. Season 19 had 22 episodes, so the price per may go down to about $1.18 or so.

But even at $1.99 per episode, it's worth it to us for being commercial-free, and for knowing that each time we watch the show that it will be an episode we haven't seen before.

We also buy season passes to "NCIS".

I think it would ultimately be better for us the viewers if the whole system evolved into something like what it is now on the Apple Store. That way we the viewers can more directly "vote" on shows with our "wallets" instead of being subjected to behind the scenes deals between studios and cable providers.

We also love our Apple TV and look forward to future enhancements of it.

Daniel Swanson

Reply

Daniel Swanson

Reply
post #18 of 90
I'm not paying .99 per episode. It would end up costing me more than twice the cost of my satellite subscription. Nor do I need to watch TV anywhere other than my TV. I do have an HTPC connected to my PC and watch many TV shows and movies through it which works well. Can't use the apple tv as it doesn't support my various formats, 7.1 audio, TrueHD or DTS-MA HD. Pretty much makes that a useless device for me.
post #19 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

Look the iPad isn't HD... it isn't even conducive to watching TV and yet somehow Apple had this MAJOR PLAY that would have put the iPad as the centerpiece of their TV subscription plan?!?!

First, this is NOT just for the iPad but rather for the whole iTunes Store. The iPad is used as a way to finally convince the studios to agree to this plan. Apple failed to do this with the AppleTV, they are hoping that with the iPod they have more laverage.

Second, there is added value in the ability to consume TV on the go, and the iPad with its bigger screen is a step up from the iPhone.
post #20 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

I agree...

Either this story is portraying TV shows with far too much importance... Very possible...

OR

Apple is one screwed up company...

Look the iPad isn't HD... it isn't even conducive to watching TV and yet somehow Apple had this MAJOR PLAY that would have put the iPad as the centerpiece of their TV subscription plan?!?!

Sorry but that's just about as bad as Steve trying to explain why the newest iPod sensation only supports MONO.

Sorry... but either Apple has really and truly lost it.. or this story is trying to make the iPad into something that it was never built to be. Can you imagine Apple trying to sell a subscription service to the studios...



Yea... Selling a subscription service with an SD ONLY device is almost as stupid as trying to sell a subscription service on todays Kindle ..

Much of what you've said makes sense, and I agree there's a huge amount of inconsistencies apparent that don't seem to reconcile very well, IF their efforts are all intended for the iPad. But.... another thing I noticed was that you used the word "Mono". Are you serious, the iPad is mono??? Please say it's not true.
post #21 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Anyone who thinks Apple is trying to negotiate this TV Show subscription for the iPad is naive. They are using the iPad argument as a trojan horse for their TV set. Coming later.

So are you implying that the AppleTV as we know it is a dead horse? Help me out because you know how stupid I am as you stated prior.
post #22 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLuv View Post

The iPad does so support HD. It is 768 which is HD. More FUD from a Hater...

Can it output HD? Is it in the 16:9 HD ratio?
post #23 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLuv View Post

The iPad does so support HD. It is 768 which is HD. More FUD from a Hater...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TECHSTUD View Post

Can it output HD? Is it in the 16:9 HD ratio?

Let's not go down this whole "is it HD or isn't it" debate again. It's been discussed ad-nauseam already.
post #24 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by benice View Post

Much of what you've said makes sense, and I agree there's a huge amount of inconsistencies apparent that don't seem to reconcile very well, IF their efforts are all intended for the iPad. But.... another thing I noticed was that you used the word "Mono". Are you serious, the iPad is mono??? Please say it's not true.

It is not true. The iPad will output 5.1 sound. Anything less would be a horrible flaw.
post #25 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielSW View Post

But even at $1.99 per episode, it's worth it to us for being commercial-free, and for knowing that each time we watch the show that it will be an episode we haven't seen before.

We also buy season passes to "NCIS".

That's for SD though. HD episodes are $2.99. That's just outrageous.
post #26 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by TECHSTUD View Post

Can it output HD? Is it in the 16:9 HD ratio?

It is 728p. That is HD.

And yes, it will display 16:9.

Now go away.
post #27 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielSW View Post

I'm all for lowering the prices of TV episodes, but aside from that, we just bought a season pass for season 20 of "Law and Order" for $25.99 which got us 16 episodes so far, which works out to $1.63 per. Season 19 had 22 episodes, so the price per may go down to about $1.18 or so.

But even at $1.99 per episode, it's worth it to us for being commercial-free, and for knowing that each time we watch the show that it will be an episode we haven't seen before.

We also buy season passes to "NCIS".

I think it would ultimately be better for us the viewers if the whole system evolved into something like what it is now on the Apple Store. That way we the viewers can more directly "vote" on shows with our "wallets" instead of being subjected to behind the scenes deals between studios and cable providers.

We also love our Apple TV and look forward to future enhancements of it.



Your obviously in the small percentage of the high end market and there is nothing wrong with that, but if Apple wants to sell a lot of devices, they need lots of content AND low prices for that content as to make it appear paying $499 or more for a iPad a worthwhile investment.

Apple reminds me a lot of Disney World, you get inside the park and all of a sudden get confronted with little choices, few options and high prices.
post #28 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLuv View Post

It is not true. The iPad will output 5.1 sound. Anything less would be a horrible flaw.

Thanks for the clarification. I was genuinely worried about it. 5.1 sounds pretty good to me!
post #29 of 90
What is Apple's goal in the equation? Eliminate advertising or simplify access to content? If it is the latter, why can't they just make the same arrangements as Cable operators for the content and cash in on well-targeted advertising? If it is the former, well, the networks have cause for concern.
post #30 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

Sorry but that's just about as bad as Steve trying to explain why the newest iPod sensation only supports MONO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iLuv View Post

It is not true. The iPad will output 5.1 sound. Anything less would be a horrible flaw.

The iPad techspec says this:

Quote:
Input and output
Dock connector port
3.5-mm stereo headphone jack
Built-in speaker
Microphone
Micro SIM card tray (Wi-Fi + 3G model only)

I can't say from this anyhing about the built-in speaker, it can very well be mono (the iPhone has a mono speaker too, btw), which is fine, IMO. However, the headphone jack is stereo. This allows you to listen to movies and video audio in streo through a set of headphones.

You can definitely connect a set of stereo speakers, or a car audio system to this jack in order to get audio in stereo from the iPad.

Not sure about 5.1 audio, though, as it is not specified in the tech spec. Anyway, don't you need a Toslink digital optical port for that (like you have on the AppleTV)?
post #31 of 90
And that in a nutshell is why Bit Torrent thrives.
post #32 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLuv View Post

It is 728p. That is HD.

And yes, it will display 16:9.

Now go away.

You meant the iPad is 768p, right? There is no 728p, but there is 720p.
post #33 of 90
LOL, the TV execs are just as stupid as the record industry execs.

Digital downloads make more money for the record labels, and yet those guys are still bitter about Apple's emergence as the dominant digital music retailer. CD album sales were already sucking before, don't blame Apple for your outdated business model.

The TV execs are scared sh_tless of losing control, but today's consumer is already wresting away from them. Frankly, they should shut their mouths, sign the deal, and go buy some shares of AAPL.
post #34 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott6666 View Post

And that in a nutshell is why Bit Torrent thrives.

The studios are blind to the fact that their existing business models are failing and they are not willing to buy into newer and more up-to-date models such as the ones offers by Apple. As long as this will percist, TV (and Movie) piracy will continue and grow.

Btw, I am an avid iTunes Strore user, but I must admit that the prices in the store for video are too expensive for most users.
post #35 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

What is Apple's goal in the equation? Eliminate advertising or simplify access to content? If it is the latter, why can't they just make the same arrangements as Cable operators for the content and cash in on well-targeted advertising? If it is the former, well, the networks have cause for concern.

Apple has never been against advertising. After all, they made a concerted effort to acquire AdMob, but got beat by Google. Many of the 150,000+ apps in the App Store are ad-supported.

Apple has consistently used content (music, video, movies, apps) to drive sales of its high-margin hardware. That is presumably what they are trying to do with cheap TV episode downloads or their temporarily-shelved plans at TV subscriptions.
post #36 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerseymac View Post

I wish I could rent TV shows from iTunes. I can't see filling my bookshelves with hard drives to store hi def tv shows and having more time capsules to back up my purchases. HD file sizes have to really add up over time.

Excellent point. Sometimes I use my Apple TV to purchase a show if my DVR failed to record it for whatever reason. But after I've watched it, I don't need it anymore. They need to have someway to recognize the difference for someone that wants to watch it once and someone that wants to keep it as you would as if you're buying the DVD of a season.
Having said that, network execs need to get their heads out of their butts. NBC lost money on the Olympics, CBS is losing money on the NCAA tournament. Ad revenue is drying up yet the networks still are hestitant to try different revenue streams. How these guys and gals keep their jobs is beyond me.

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply
post #37 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElmCityWeb View Post

I'd buy that for a buck! I'd rather pay per episode than have a subscription.

I buy a few shows of iTunes now. I'd buy significantly more if they were $1. I can see a rental model for TV shows. Rent a show and you have 24 hours to finish watching it. Either that or a subscription model with advertising.
post #38 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeYYY View Post

The studios are blind to the fact that their existing business models are failing and they are not willing to buy into newer and more up-to-date models such as the ones offers by Apple. As long as this will percist, TV (and Movie) piracy will continue and grow.

Btw, I am an avid iTunes Strore user, but I must admit that the prices in the store for video are too expensive for most users.

The prices are fine for someone who only watches 1-2 shows in a season. To get a more mainstream audience it needs to cost less. Older movie rentals should also be $1. That is the only way your going to compete against Netflix. I bet a $1 rental would make the movie studios much more then someone watching on Netflix. Previous seasons should also cost less (they are on Netflix too). Maybe that's where they will start? Previous seasons $1?
post #39 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post

WHAT??!!!

snip...

I got Netflix, a PS3/$99 Roku and we can stream as much as we want for a mere $8 and change a month.

Our family watches 2 movies before the kids go off to bed and then the two of us watch one TV show each before falling off to sleep.

...snip

Wow, you watch a lot of TV.
post #40 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneaburns View Post

Excellent point. Sometimes I use my Apple TV to purchase a show if my DVR failed to record it for whatever reason. But after I've watched it, I don't need it anymore. They need to have someway to recognize the difference for someone that wants to watch it once and someone that wants to keep it as you would as if you're buying the DVD of a season.
Having said that, network execs need to get their heads out of their butts. NBC lost money on the Olympics, CBS is losing money on the NCAA tournament. Ad revenue is drying up yet the networks still are hestitant to try different revenue streams. How these guys and gals keep their jobs is beyond me.

+1 for this kind of usage.

If I could be bothered to spend the time, I'd have no qualms about pulling the TV show of the Torrents (on the basis that I've already paid for it with my Sky subscription -- I always skip through the ads).

If the TV shows were cheaper, I'd buy more. They're too bloody expensive at the moment, anyway.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple tables push for TV subscriptions on iPad, seeks 99 cent episodes