or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Report: Apple TV to stream 99 cent TV show rentals
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Report: Apple TV to stream 99 cent TV show rentals

post #1 of 78
Thread Starter 
Apple is reportedly in talks with TV studios to sell them on the idea of renting TV episodes for 99 cents rather than selling downloads for $1.99.

According to a report by NewTeeVee, the rental program Apple is promoting would work just like existing movie rentals: users would have 30 days to start watching the show, and would then need to finish within 24 hours of starting playback.

Unlike movie rentals and other iTunes sales however, the TV programming would be streamed from Apple's cloud servers. Such a service would seemingly be ideal for the rumored iOS-based replacement to today's Apple TV, which is expected to lack a conventional hard drive and instead reply upon on-demand cloud streaming and local wireless sharing.

The recently unveiled Hulu Plus is similarly seeking to determine what customers will pay to access TV shows. It now charges $9.99 per month for access to shows on ABC, Fox and NBC.

Apple has previously dragged hesitant TV and movie studios to the iTunes market and forced them to drink, typically starting with its closest ally, Disney, and slowly winning over other companies, selling them on the merits of direct downloads and rentals.
post #2 of 78
99 cents is too much for a TV rental.
post #3 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

99 cents is too much for a TV rental.

I respectfully disagree. Sometimes, I miss a TV show because I failed to record it, or maybe I saw a new show mid-season and decided I'd like to view the rest. Renting for $0.99 is like buying music for $0.99. It's cheap enough to be an impulse buy. And even though you don't actually OWN the TV episode, I think the economics favor that route. I don't have to pay double or more to buy just one episode, which sucks up storage space. I'm not forced to pay full price for a whole season. If it streams over the web, then I can presumably watch it anywhere I go.

In truth, I don't care to own my TV episodes (or movies for that matter) in digital form the way I wanted my music in digital form simply because with video, visual compression artifacts are far more noticeable than in audible music. And video is much larger in terms of file size than audio as well. So if I can pay rock-bottom price just to rent one to watch it and no intention or need to own it, I like this idea.
post #4 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

99 cents is too much for a TV rental.

No it isn't.

We've paid for TV for decades by having to put up with irrelevant ads.

This is a big relief and more equitable, as you more directly pay for what you want to watch as you go. Kinda like paying tolls on toll roads.

Daniel Swanson

Reply

Daniel Swanson

Reply
post #5 of 78
I love it! Or I will if it happens.
post #6 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

99 cents is too much for a TV rental.

How much do you spend a year on a cable/sat subscription? How many new programs, not reruns of older shows but actual first run shows, do you watch within that year?

Divide the former by the latter and that is how much you are paying per show you watch. Take that and divide it by the number of eps in a season and that is how much you are paying per eps.

I highly doubt that your number will be significantly lower that $0.99.
post #7 of 78
I hope this happens. Even without this, it looks like cable companies are starting to
understand that people don't like their current offerings.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100708/...ewarnercable_1
post #8 of 78
How's this for a report: None of these reports are anything close to what Apple is actually going to do with TV!

All these Apple TV rumours are so far off the mark its amazing that people pay attention to them.

Don't you get it? Apple doesn't want sell a box that you hook up to a TV. Apple wants to sell a TV. An actual TV. Which just happens to be loaded with Apple services and software.

The next Apple TV is a TV.

My two cents.
post #9 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

How's this for a report: None of these reports are anything close to what Apple is actually going to do with TV!

All these Apple TV rumours are so far off the mark its amazing that people pay attention to them.

Don't you get it? Apple doesn't want sell a box that you hook up to a TV. Apple wants to sell a TV. An actual TV. Which just happens to be loaded with Apple services and software.

The next Apple TV is a TV.

My two cents.

Nope. Too many logistics headaches.

They'd have to have all sorts of sizes and enclosures. No room to display them in retail stores.

And that's to say nothing of ever-changing technologies. Too expensive to keep up with.

Remember that Apple iPod portable speaker thing? Dead in the water. Too cumbersome. Too awkward. Too stupid.

Daniel Swanson

Reply

Daniel Swanson

Reply
post #10 of 78
When I watch something, I always want to watch it again later... and potentially share with my friends. I'd rather spend the extra $ and GET the episode than to pay 99 cents just to see it once.
post #11 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

How's this for a report: None of these reports are anything close to what Apple is actually going to do with TV!

All these Apple TV rumours are so far off the mark its amazing that people pay attention to them.

Don't you get it? Apple doesn't want sell a box that you hook up to a TV. Apple wants to sell a TV. An actual TV. Which just happens to be loaded with Apple services and software.

The next Apple TV is a TV.

My two cents.

Too expensive I think. They would have to make multiple sets (screen sizes) to satisfy various needs. I don't think they are prepared to do that. They already have the technology to make a box that ANYONE can use.
post #12 of 78
Being able to rent just one or two missed eps for .99 would be very nice. Id pay it happily.

I wouldnt watch a whole season that wayits around the cost of a Season Pass, where you get to keep the episodes, watch them any time, and have free reruns (at the expense of storage space).

Also, come on, content-owners... give us 48 hours! Wheres the harm?
post #13 of 78
Subscription is the way to go with video content...

Netflix has the right idea with their Instant View....

Expand Netflix instant-view to ALL DVD released movies & shows (not just hodge podge selection.) Include ALL current network broadcast shows after a week delay. Add some la carte ordering option for cable and premium channels but in the form of ON DEMAND.... And you can take over the world.

What I'd pay:

$50/month for ALL DVD releases (movies and shows) Basically FULL Netflix on Demand.

$15/month for ALL network broadcast shows after a week delay (hell... even allow 15 or 30 second HULU type advertising.. or standard advertising with fast-forward option.)

$2 to $10 /month a-la-carte for premium channel ON DEMAND with week delay.

I'd happily pay close to $100 / month in total to get EXACTLY what I want when I want it, including all DVD movies and TV shows on demand... All in one place with high quality, reliable and easily searched.

I don't want to own movies or shows. I don't want to rent movies or shows. I want 24/7 access on demand of movies and shows, and am willing to pay a steep subscription to get the full catalog.
post #14 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielSW View Post

Nope. Too many logistics headaches.

They'd have to have all sorts of sizes and enclosures. No room to display them in retail stores.

And that's to say nothing of ever-changing technologies. Too expensive to keep up with.

Remember that Apple iPod portable speaker thing? Dead in the water. Too cumbersome. Too awkward. Too stupid.

I absolutely disagree. I think the TV market is complex because nobody has ever made it simple. It would be an easy market for Apple to enter. Selling TVs is not rocket science.

What would it actually take? Well, they just need a product which is really one TV scaled to different sizes (20, 30, 40, 50, etc). They could probably make do with 3-4 sizes. Do a version refresh once a year with maybe a point update mid-year. Hang them in Apple stores (hey look, there are TVs behind the Genius bar already!). Sell them online. Apple faithful would gobble them up.

If Apple can be successful in the phone, computer and music player market they can easily be successful selling TVs. They are arguably a far less complex technology and there are no carriers or service provider relationships to worry about. Really, what would be more difficult to make and sell: a computer with a full OS or a TV?? I think Apple can handle a TV.

TV companies want us to think TVs are complicated. They want us to think that the technology changes every 5 minutes. In reality though I think the market would be easy to crack. If you can put a product on the shelf that looks good people will buy it. If you're Apple lots of people will buy it.

The flip side is sticking with an Apple TV box model, which makes no sense. Apple wouldn't make any margin selling a $99 box. And they wouldn't make any margin selling 99 cent TV shows. There is no money it it. They have to sell the TV and make big margin on a big ticket item. Then they make a small recurring profit on each TV show and movie they sell/rent. Its the iPod and iPhone model all over again.

There is a reason Apple TV is called Apple TV: because the real product that they've been planning for years is the iTV. Its an actual TV.

iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTV... the Apple ecosystem wherever you are.
post #15 of 78
99 cents doesn't sound like a bad price but considering Americans have a compulsive need to watch, on average, 4.5 hours of TV per day that works out to $135/month if they were renting it all from iTunes. Most of those people will keep at least a minimum cable/satellite subscription for another $50/month. I just don't see any wide appeal for it. I can't imagine people buying a special device just to watch a couple shows on now and again. $9.99/month + ads and cheap hardware just makes a lot more sense for the typical American. Maybe outside of the US it's a different story.
post #16 of 78
Now THAT would be something *IF* it was MOVIES we were talking about!!!! It would be the end of Redbox, my $1 solution...
post #17 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

How's this for a report: None of these reports are anything close to what Apple is actually going to do with TV!

All these Apple TV rumours are so far off the mark its amazing that people pay attention to them.

Don't you get it? Apple doesn't want sell a box that you hook up to a TV. Apple wants to sell a TV. An actual TV. Which just happens to be loaded with Apple services and software.

The next Apple TV is a TV.

My two cents.



The flip side is sticking with an Apple TV box model, which makes no sense. Apple wouldn't make any margin selling a $99 box. And they wouldn't make any margin selling 99 cent TV shows. There is no money it it. They have to sell the TV and make big margin on a big ticket item. Then they make a small recurring profit on each TV show and movie they sell/rent. Its the iPod and iPhone model all over again.

There is a reason Apple TV is called Apple TV: because the real product that they've been planning for years is the iTV. Its an actual TV.

They would still make 30% at least on the .99 model.
post #18 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by SinisterJoe View Post

99 cents doesn't sound like a bad price but considering Americans have a compulsive need to watch, on average, 4.5 hours of TV per day that works out to $135/month if they were renting it all from iTunes. Most of those people will keep at least a minimum cable/satellite subscription for another $50/month. I just don't see any wide appeal for it. I can't imagine people buying a special device just to watch a couple shows on now and again. $9.99/month + ads and cheap hardware just makes a lot more sense for the typical American. Maybe outside of the US it's a different story.

Not too different here in Canada. You can easily pay $60 to $80 just to get the "TV Channel Package" that includes the channels you want, and you end up paying for a whole whack of channels you'll never watch.

I vastly prefer the on-demand pay-for-what-I-want-to-watch model that Apple is popularizing. And I don't want to pay with my time. I want to pay cold, hard cash. $0.99 is comfortable since I'd probably just watch 5 shows a week, so that works out to $20 to $25 per month for my TV expenses.
post #19 of 78
Someone care to point out how $1 rentals are a good deal when you can already buy the episodes for $2. Save a dollar watch it once? Pay extra dollar, keep it forever..

They better not remove the ability to purchase shows. I don't want to rent my videos, I want to own them.
post #20 of 78
Not too keen on the price per episode for a rental. I'm not big on rentals, I'd rather own as I'll go back and watch favorites over and over. My problem now is hard drive space.

Here's a better idea, if we're gonna do streaming. $10-$15 for a season pass, and you can watch it as many times as you like once it's authorized to your account, but it's streamed instead of downloaded. Same rules for number of PCs, iPods, iPhones, etc - no reason why you couldn't watch it on the go on your iTunes-account-authorized iPhone and then show the good parts to your family when you get home on the 55" LCD. This way, if you hear about a cool new show a couple of episodes in, catch-up is easy.

There's one copy - up on Apple's servers - so no big storage headaches.
post #21 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sherlockholmes View Post

How much do you spend a year on a cable/sat subscription? How many new programs, not reruns of older shows but actual first run shows, do you watch within that year?

Divide the former by the latter and that is how much you are paying per show you watch. Take that and divide it by the number of eps in a season and that is how much you are paying per eps.

I highly doubt that your number will be significantly lower that $0.99.

This is a meaningless argument.

The average teenager watches 4 to 6 hours of TV a day, and the majority of the shows are half hour ones. In any fairly normal household in North America, the total hours of shows watched in a year is an astronomical figure.

I could just as easily argue that at $.99 a show that this will cost the family thousands of dollars a month. The counter to that is that you wouldn't necessarily be renting all the shows, but there are many factors that would affect your argument too.

Large numbers of people have recorders of some kind as well and shows are repeated endlessly as you yourself point out. No one misses a show anymore unless they really want to.

$.99 is way too much for a rental of a show, especially if we are talking half hours shows. It's a fantastically, ridiculously high price for something you don't even get to own. Especially when for a $30 cable bill, you get access to thousands and thousands of shows.
post #22 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingKuei View Post

I respectfully disagree. Sometimes, I miss a TV show because I failed to record it, or maybe I saw a new show mid-season and decided I'd like to view the rest. Renting for $0.99 is like buying music for $0.99. It's cheap enough to be an impulse buy. And even though you don't actually OWN the TV episode, I think the economics favor that route. I don't have to pay double or more to buy just one episode, which sucks up storage space. I'm not forced to pay full price for a whole season. If it streams over the web, then I can presumably watch it anywhere I go.

In truth, I don't care to own my TV episodes (or movies for that matter) in digital form the way I wanted my music in digital form simply because with video, visual compression artifacts are far more noticeable than in audible music. And video is much larger in terms of file size than audio as well. So if I can pay rock-bottom price just to rent one to watch it and no intention or need to own it, I like this idea.

$0.99 an episode is fine but I think they should offer the full season as well for additional cost...
post #23 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielSW View Post

... (re: TV's) And that's to say nothing of ever-changing technologies. Too expensive to keep up with. ...

As an older person, I find this comment hilarious.

TV "technology" has hardly changed at all for 40 or 50 years at least (that's when the vacuum tubes were swapped with circuit boards). Every year, since as long as I paid attention (the late 60's), manufacturers have come out with some kind of minimal innovation with a jazzy name, or a new line of TVs with a jazzy name, or promised that next year's TV would be even better, and every year they came out with the same old TV. The only thing they really did is think up those jazzy names.

The only changes in the entire TV manufacturing industry have been very *recent* with the new flatscreen TV's (plasmas, LCD's), and all *that* technology was produced for computers, and by the R&D departments of computer manufacturers. People were starving for bigger, and flatter TV's for 20 years before the computer industry finally kicked the TV makers in the butt and gave them the necessary technology on a silver platter.

So, if Apple *did* enter the TV making business, they would be following that same model of informing the old dying stupid industry (Television manufacturers), with possibly some new ideas and newer technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielSW View Post

...Remember that Apple iPod portable speaker thing? Dead in the water. Too cumbersome. Too awkward. Too stupid.

This is not a good example to use.

In fact, that particular product was not successful because it was expensive, didn't satisfy "audiophiles" (as if anything ever could), and mostly because it was "ahead of it's time." It was roundly ridiculed at the time because "why would anyone want to plug an iPod into a speaker system?" (the reviews are still fairly easy to find). But here we are a few years later and there are literally hundreds of products that do exactly this and for more money and with lower quality than the supposedly "failed" iPod boombox.
post #24 of 78
Monthly subscription to the networks including the local stations for say $4.99/month the same as DishTV.

A la carte for other 'networks' such as TV Land, TCN, etc. with pricing at a couple of bucks per month for each of the selected stations.

All those are fed at a constant feed with the option to play any show with commercials at any time or any show for 99 cents without commercials at any time.

Movie rentals for $1.99 or so depending on the release date.

Cable and satellite won't give us a la carte pricing so maybe Apple will. I don't like having to order a package of channels that includes many shop at home channels crammed in and included in the channel count.
post #25 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

This is a meaningless argument.

The average teenager watches 4 to 6 hours of TV a day, and the majority of the shows are half hour ones. In any fairly normal household in North America, the total hours of shows watched in a year is an astronomical figure.

I could just as easily argue that at $.99 a show that this will cost the family thousands of dollars a month. The counter to that is that you wouldn't necessarily be renting all the shows, but there are many factors that would affect your argument too.

Large numbers of people have recorders of some kind as well and shows are repeated endlessly as you yourself point out. No one misses a show anymore unless they really want to.

$.99 is way too much for a rental of a show, especially if we are talking half hours shows. It's a fantastically, ridiculously high price for something you don't even get to own. Especially when for a $30 cable bill, you get access to thousands and thousands of shows.

Well, better than 80% of that tv, both actual watch and on paper accessible is crap used to fill up time slots. That is something this model, and any pay per view/on demand system, kills. People will still pay for it, sure. Just like people pay to go see Twilight movies. But now, people are presented with a choice, a big thing, and also it removes the middle man of the cable/tv networks. For that alone, I would pay $0.99/eps. How many good shows were canned by networks because of some fantastical "ratings" which really doesn't signify reality. Even event shows, such as "american idol" like reality tv, News, award shows and sports casts will become live stream events on the net for free or limited subscription/PPV (which I think will happen to cable news networks and sports leagues), with sponsorship and ad backing.

This is more about killing the transmission mafias of Cable/Networks, than about providing the same experience from a different outlet.
post #26 of 78
I proposed something similar to Steve Jobs in an email in February. I proposed that "half hour" shows ( 20-30 minutes) be $0.35 and "hour shows" ( 45-60min ) shows be $0.70-$0.99

You'd get discounts if you prepay to "subscribe" to a series, and you would also have further discounts for daily series like The Daily show.

Then you'd give users an option to "KEEP IT" , meaning after you watch the show if you like it so much you want to keep it, you can pay an extra $.50 premium, or having your rental cost apply to the cost of the show, etc.

I didn't get a response.

I thought it was a great idea at the time.
post #27 of 78
99¢ for a 30 to 60 minute TV show I can load on any PC with iTunes or iDevice and take with me for 30 days and watch at my leisure offline? That sounds reasonable to me.

I’d rather do that than pay $1.99 for a TV Show I’ll only watch once just to make sure I’m up to date with a series. To each their own, I’m glad we so many choices. Remember when you missed a show in the past and had to wait for the reruns or wait for VHS and video stores to be invented so we could catch up with a show we missed for whatever reason?
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 #28 of 78
All of my Windows 7/Media Center computers allow me to easily record any/all TV shows for free... Yes, F R E E!

My Macs... Not So Much due to their lack of (built-in) cable/TV tuners et al
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #29 of 78
Just put a DVR function in iLife and AppleTV already!!
Most of what I want to watch from broadcast sources will never be available in iTunes.
post #30 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullish View Post

$0.99 an episode is fine but I think they should offer the full season as well for additional cost...

I agree. Rental is by far the better option for me as I never re watch anything, except when I am in a vegetative state and Seinfeld or some such comes on. But I do hope there will be more options such as reduced price season passes (rental) and reduced rate subscription. I would love to ditch my cable and just watch free to air and either individual series off iTunes or even a subscription package.
post #31 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sherlockholmes View Post

How much do you spend a year on a cable/sat subscription? How many new programs, not reruns of older shows but actual first run shows, do you watch within that year?

Divide the former by the latter and that is how much you are paying per show you watch. Take that and divide it by the number of eps in a season and that is how much you are paying per eps.

I highly doubt that your number will be significantly lower that $0.99.

0÷0=Error!

Also, which is better, $1 to watch it once, or $2 to own and watch as many times and whenever you want? Or better yet find a place to watch it free, I mean legal places like Hulu. (Cue the people who insist all the legal free options like Hulu will eventually be paid access only.)
post #32 of 78
My 2 cents...

I'd rather pay a rental feel and get unlimited content for my video cravings.... At .99 cents that's about 10 bucks for 10 episodes which is not cost effective to me. I'd rather pay 10 bucks a month for as much content I can stream, actually I'd be willing to pay more. I have no reason to own a show after watching it. It's like my DVD collection, you watch it once and it sits on a shelf for dust collecting.

Now my music is a different story, I want to own my music only because I listen to it over and over on multiple devices.
post #33 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7600/132 View Post

0÷0=Error!

Also, which is better, $1 to watch it once, or $2 to own and watch as many times and whenever you want? Or better yet find a place to watch it free, I mean legal places like Hulu. (Cue the people who insist all the legal free options like Hulu will eventually be paid access only.)

The key is choice. You offer both options. Some will like one, others the other. And some will still mix and match both options.

This option offers a choice, cable doesn't.
post #34 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntercr View Post

I proposed something similar to Steve Jobs in an email in February. I proposed that "half hour" shows ( 20-30 minutes) be $0.35 and "hour shows" ( 45-60min ) shows be $0.70-$0.99

You'd get discounts if you prepay to "subscribe" to a series, and you would also have further discounts for daily series like The Daily show.

Then you'd give users an option to "KEEP IT" , meaning after you watch the show if you like it so much you want to keep it, you can pay an extra $.50 premium, or having your rental cost apply to the cost of the show, etc.

I didn't get a response.

I thought it was a great idea at the time.

Heh you were selling the wrong person I'm afraid... By all accounts the entertainment industry doesn't want to give apple anything. We get a random lump of movies in SD and sometimes 720p. sometimes Apple can sell and rent the titles and other times they are restricted to one or the other...

Steve I'm sure would have far more options if they were to allow it...
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #35 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

99¢ for a 30 to 60 minute TV show I can load on any PC with iTunes or iDevice and take with me for 30 days and watch at my leisure offline? That sounds reasonable to me.


iTunes and DRM just suck. There is no way around it though. In our house we have multiple iTunes accounts and we constantly have issues trying to keep track of what we own. I think the whole idea of preventing legitimate owners from easily accessing their paid for online content is keeping the dvd/cd industry in business. The last thing I want to do is to authorize a device at the end of the day just to watch something I already paid for.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #36 of 78
This will end up being an extremely modest success if even that. People will pay for a subscription but $.99 is just not cost prohibitive if you watch 15-20 hours of TV a week.

I don't think that Apple can break the cable monopoly especially since they've been buying up networks. I beginning to believe that Apple's only hope of a service for the Apple TV is through a company's individual app that you pay for on the App Store. It'd also make the process for "channel surfing" much more cumbersome.
post #37 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

This is a meaningless argument.

The average teenager watches 4 to 6 hours of TV a day, and the majority of the shows are half hour ones. In any fairly normal household in North America, the total hours of shows watched in a year is an astronomical figure.

I've said this before....

If "your" kid watches 4-6 hours of TV a day, you've got one dull ass kid who probably doesn't study enough. Further, it's my understanding that they are spending way more time on the internet these days anyway; it's changing the way Cartoon Network does business anyway.

Personally that just sounds like a bad habit. 1-2 shows a week is more than enough. Otherwise they should be encouraged to read or pursue some other physical activity.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #38 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

I absolutely disagree. I think the TV market is complex because nobody has ever made it simple. It would be an easy market for Apple to enter. Selling TVs is not rocket science.

I wouldn't be so bold as to say I absolutely disagree, but I'm prepared to go with I respectfully disagree.

Like you, I think Apple could sell TV's. I think they need to take on the cable subscription model by finding a company to partner with. I'd swap to say, DirecTV if they had an Apple branded TV as an option and Comcast did not, so in the same way it's worth AT&T subsidising the iPhone, it would be worth DirecTV (or one of the others) subsidising an Apple branded TV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullish View Post

$0.99 an episode is fine but I think they should offer the full season as well for additional cost...

That's a good point. I'm happy to pay 99c for an episode, but I'd also like there to be an option whereby you could watch an episode for free if you were willing to watch adverts.
post #39 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

iTunes and DRM just suck. There is no way around it though. In our house we have multiple iTunes accounts and we constantly have issues trying to keep track of what we own. I think the whole idea of preventing legitimate owners from easily accessing their paid for online content is keeping the dvd/cd industry in business. The last thing I want to do is to authorize a device at the end of the day just to watch something I already paid for.

Hey my friend.

I agree apple needs to find some way of creating "sub" accounts for families.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #40 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sherlockholmes View Post

How much do you spend a year on a cable/sat subscription? How many new programs, not reruns of older shows but actual first run shows, do you watch within that year?

Divide the former by the latter and that is how much you are paying per show you watch. Take that and divide it by the number of eps in a season and that is how much you are paying per eps.

I highly doubt that your number will be significantly lower that $0.99.

Possibly.

Regarding your math, it is questionable if the new shows being supplied by the cable company subscription sucks! It would be hard to justify the numbers to plug in to your equation. However, this math is certain... If you bought the tv show for.99 cents and store it on iTunes to watch as many times as you'd like, you would increase the cost of that same tv show by 100% if you rented more than once be it the same year or the following year or the year after that!

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Report: Apple TV to stream 99 cent TV show rentals