or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Rupert Murdoch may be swing vote in Apple's 99 cent TV rental pitch
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rupert Murdoch may be swing vote in Apple's 99 cent TV rental pitch

post #1 of 107
Thread Starter 
While most in the TV industry are opposed to Apple's proposed plan for 99 cent episode rentals, its efforts could be saved by News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch's drive to save the newspaper industry, according to a new report.

According to the Los Angeles Times, content providers NBC Universal, CBS Corp. and Time Warner Inc. have all "dug in their heels in opposition" to Apple's desire to rent TV episodes for 99 cents through iTunes. TV executives reportedly believe that the plan would break the current economic model.

Unsurprisingly, Walt Disney Co., of which Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs is the largest shareholder, has agreed to go along with the plan.

Still allegedly considering it, however, is News Corp., owner of the Fox network. Authors Dawn C. Chmielewiski and Meg James claim that executives at the media giant are divided, as some are concerned that 99 cent rentals could cut into DVD sales or pull viewers away from watching live network TV.

"But other top officials at News Corp -- especially Murdoch -- are prepared to join Apple's six-month pricing trial because it could cement a relationship with Apple's powerful chief executive, Steve Jobs, and reap benefits for other divisions within the company, namely newspapers," the report said.

"Murdoch, who began his career running small newspapers in Australia, has said that the Apple iPad will rescue old print media by luring readers who will not subscribe to a newspaper. That makes the iPad a keystone in Murdoch's ambition to launch a digital national news product this year."

Previous reports have indicated that Murdoch is pushing for a unique news organization devoted specifically to tablet devices like Apple's iPad. The subscription service is seen by the CEO as an opportunity to help News Corp. transition into the digital era for news. If created, the news organization would have its own staff and be its own, entirely new entity.

As for iTunes video sales, the Times noted that movie and TV purchases have stalled in recent years, as the idea of owning a digital video has not caught on with consumers like owning music has. Apple has reportedly told the TV networks that 99 cent rentals will more than double the transactions.

TV executives, however, feel that a major discount on show rentals "sends the wrong message" when broadcasters have been having cable operators pay for the right to retransmit network TV signals.

"Other major TV producers say privately they fear the industry is about to fall into the same trap as the music industry," the report said. "Faced with burgeoning Internet piracy, music labels struck a deal with Apple to sell 99-cent song downloads in 2003 inadvertently torpedoing CDs sales. Warner Bros., for example, refuses to jeopardize its lucrative syndication business, which can haul in an as much as $2 million per episode for the sale of reruns of shows such as "The Big Bang Theory," a comedy it produces for CBS."

The report from the Times also contradicts recent indications that CBS remained in discussions with Apple for 99 cent TV show rentals. A recent report from Bloomberg indicated that Apple and News Corp. were in "advanced talks" to offer the rentals, which would give users 48 hours to watch a program.

Less interested has been NBC, which cable provider Comcast hopes to own, following a federal review. A Comcast-owned NBC is seen as the least likely partner for Apple, as the availability of inexpensive TV show rentals through iTunes could allow some customers to cancel their cable subscription.
post #2 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"Other major TV producers say privately they fear the industry is about to fall into the same trap as the music industry,"


Is this for real
post #3 of 107
I find the viewpoint that the online sale of music inadvertently torpedoed CD sales to laughable.

What torpedoed CD sales was that physical copies of music offer no benefit to downloaded versions. They're more expensive, stores have incomplete selection and I have to drive to get them. This is the same issue that newspapers and books are running into (I know, reading a real book just feels better, but 2x the price better?).

So, I imagine I'll get mostly agreement on AI's message board, but the TV executives need to realize a la carte pricing is the only business model that will work over time. People don't want crap, and they'll watch some ads, if the product is cheaper, or pay more for ad-free content.

And if TV goes the way of apps, then they can create engaging content around shows that keep viewers engaged and more passionate about content. And it also democratizes the content so that anyone, a la the podcast universe, can get their product in front of people.

I can't wait to see what happens over the next 5 years.
post #4 of 107
I'd like to know how much money the TV networks make on a per-viewer per-episode basis on regular TV. If they're currently making less than $1 per person in advertising profit then they should clearly take this deal since it would provide them an overall boost in earnings.
post #5 of 107
If Murdoch is involved, I'd rather this effort fail. The man is a parasite and despicable in every sense of the word.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #6 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by crustyjusty View Post

I find the viewpoint that the online sale of music inadvertently torpedoed CD sales to laughable.

What torpedoed CD sales was that physical copies of music offer no benefit to downloaded versions. They're more expensive, stores have incomplete selection and I have to drive to get them. This is the same issue that newspapers and books are running into (I know, reading a real book just feels better, but 2x the price better?).

So, I imagine I'll get mostly agreement on AI's message board, but the TV executives need to realize a la carte pricing is the only business model that will work over time. People don't want crap, and they'll watch some ads, if the product is cheaper, or pay more for ad-free content.

And if TV goes the way of apps, then they can create engaging content around shows that keep viewers engaged and more passionate about content. And it also democratizes the content so that anyone, a la the podcast universe, can get their product in front of people.

I can't wait to see what happens over the next 5 years.

I don't it laughable at all. What was lost was the sale of the complete album. People are buying 2-3 tracks at a buck a apiece, instead of buying the $12-13 album. I definitely think that is a concern to all music producers.
post #7 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

If Murdoch is involved, I'd rather this effort fail. The man is a parasite and despicable in every sense of the word.

Horseshit.
post #8 of 107
We are a DVR house and sometimes we need to record/watch more than 2 shows at the same time. Rental would be a big plus. The alternative is grabbing it off a bittorrent site but I'd rather pay a FAIR fee and 99 cents seems fair.
post #9 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

I don't it laughable at all. What was lost was the sale of the complete album. People are buying 2-3 tracks at a buck a apiece, instead of buying the $12-13 album. I definitely think that is a concern to all music producers.

the pirates killed the music business
apple stepped in and gave them a low overhead way to make money again.

no brick and mortar
no discs
no shipping
no carbon / paper / plastic

how soon we forget how bad it had gotten !!
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #10 of 107
does Appleinsider do anything beisdes copy and paste large chunks of the original source article? I ALWAYS read the source article first, before coming back to AI for the cut up plagiarism they offer up.
post #11 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

If Murdoch is involved, I'd rather this effort fail. The man is a parasite and despicable in every sense of the word.

Steve don't do it, a deal with Murdock would only help the christain wrong and the republican party.
post #12 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryb View Post

Steve don't do it, a deal with Murdock would only help the christain wrong and the republican party.

At least he knows how to spell "Christian". Clearly God has not blessed you with education.
post #13 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryb View Post

Steve don't do it, a deal with Murdock would only help the christain wrong and the republican party.

Christians and Republicans don't rent movies?
post #14 of 107
iTunes did not destroy CD sales. It was the invention of blank CD's that destroyed music CD sales. Ask anyone who worked at Tower Records before they went bankrupt, and they will tell you that blank CD sales actually SURPASSED music CD sales for many years before iTunes was introduced. Then Napster made getting free music even easier. iTunes actually SAVED the music industry, and finally gave consumers what they wanted: the ability to buy individual songs. Too bad that the greedy music executives -- who make millions of dollars per year for doing nothing except acting as unnecessary middlmen -- don't like it.
post #15 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryb View Post

Steve don't do it, a deal with Murdock would only help the christain wrong and the republican party.

Stop by Wikipedia. I'm sure you support something he's a part of. Really hard not to whether you like him or not.
post #16 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

If Murdoch is involved, I'd rather this effort fail. The man is a parasite and despicable in every sense of the word.

I don't like it much either. Murdoch buys too much political influence. His "news" is usually created not reported. I hope I never have to see Glenn Beck selling gold or books by crying on my iPad.
post #17 of 107
Any self-proclaimed 'news' organization that manipulates the masses in such an overt way is despicable in my book. Fox News has completely thrown caution to the wind lately with a million dollar donation to the GOP (all in the name of 'business interests of course). No news outlet should cross such lines:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11014504

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot...mosque-planner

http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2010/0...s-mehlman.html

http://mediamatters.org/reports/200904080025

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_New..._controversies

This is one of the largest "news" corporations in American yet they are about the farthest from impartial that I've seen.

I stand by my statement. Murdock is a parasite.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #18 of 107
since when did this site become a political blog? Get a life.

For the record, Fox News is the ONLY network that leans to the right. Every other network is clearly left-leaning (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC etc). Can't republicans have ONE channel to turn to and see opinions they agree with? Chill out.
post #19 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlanganki View Post

I'd like to know how much money the TV networks make on a per-viewer per-episode basis on regular TV. If they're currently making less than $1 per person in advertising profit then they should clearly take this deal since it would provide them an overall boost in earnings.



Your analysis is unidimensional. There are many, many more factors to consider.
post #20 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleStud View Post

since when did this site become a political blog? Get a life.

For the record, Fox News is the ONLY network that leans to the right. Every other network is clearly left-leaning (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC etc). Can't republicans have ONE channel to turn to and see opinions they agree with? Chill out.

Any any sane person would view the fact that Fox is the 'only news channel that leans to the right' to mean that Fox is extreme and out of the mainstream since all other news channels would be by definition more mainstream.

This became a political topic when it involved Murdock since he a highly prominent and political figure. The fact that Apple would do business with this man is reprehensible.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #21 of 107
I didn't give up buying CDs until iTunes got rid of the DRM and increased the quality. DRM is the same reason I haven't bought any TV shows or Movies from iTunes. I want personal control over what I purchase. Rentals are a different story. I watch too much TV to spend a dollar per show regularly, but I would definitely rent movies. I might even rent episodes of TV shows I missed, or can't get on Hulu/Netflix. All that aside, I still wish there was hope for a subscription based service so I can give the cable part of my comcast bill the boot.
post #22 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Any any sane person would view the fact that Fox is the 'only news channel that leans to the right' to mean that Fox is extreme and out of the mainstream since all other news channels would be by definition more mainstream.

This became a political topic when it involved Murdock since he a highly prominent and political figure. The fact that Apple would do business with this man is reprehensible.

If being liberal is "mainstream," please explain the sweeping losses the democrats are going to suffer this November.

So Apple is trying to become a content distributor, and doing business with one of the world's largest content owners/creators is "reprehensible"? You're an idiot. As a stockholder, I'd be furious if Apple wasn't trying to secure every deal possible. Please leave your distorted reality and join "mainstream" reality.
post #23 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleStud View Post

since when did this site become a political blog? Get a life.

For the record, Fox News is the ONLY network that leans to the right. Every other network is clearly left-leaning (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC etc). Can't republicans have ONE channel to turn to and see opinions they agree with? Chill out.



None of those networks "lean to the left". All are owned by ardent capitalists. All are defenders of the status quo. All are invested in keeping the power structure pretty much the same.

Get real.
post #24 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

. The fact that Apple would do business with this man is reprehensible.


They suck up the the ChiComs, so why not suck up to the other end of the spectrum too?

There's money to be made. Chill.
post #25 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Any any sane person would view the fact that Fox is the 'only news channel that leans to the right' to mean that Fox is extreme and out of the mainstream since all other news channels would be by definition more mainstream.

This became a political topic when it involved Murdock since he a highly prominent and political figure. The fact that Apple would do business with this man is reprehensible.

Any news channel who has to use terms like "fair and balanced" in their tag line is anything but...
post #26 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleStud View Post

If being liberal is "mainstream," please explain the sweeping losses the democrats are going to suffer this November.

So Apple is trying to become a content distributor, and doing business with one of the world's largest content owners/creators is "reprehensible"? You're an idiot. As a stockholder, I'd be furious if Apple wasn't trying to secure every deal possible. Please leave your distorted reality and join "mainstream" reality.

Nice misdirection there. I could care less about the 'dems' and their projected losses. I care about Murdock.

As a stockholder, I DO care about the folks Apple gets in bed with, as should you.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #27 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

None of those networks "lean to the left". All are owned by ardent capitalists. All are defenders of the status quo. All are invested in keeping the power structure pretty much the same.

Get real.

You must not watch these networks much if you think none of them "lean" to the left. Do yourself a favor and watch Roland Martin, Keith Olberman, Wolf Blitzer, or any of those characters. Then see which direction they lean towards. Obviously Fox News is right-leaning. But MSNBC is the hardest-leaning liberal channel on earth, and they aren't vilified for some reason.
post #28 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Nice misdirection there. I could care less about the 'dems' and their projected losses. I care about Murdock.

As a stockholder, I DO care about the folks Apple gets in bed with, as should you.

I guess you don't want the Simpsons, Family Guy, or 24 on your iPad?
post #29 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleStud View Post

If being liberal is "mainstream," please explain the sweeping losses the democrats are going to suffer this November.



Explaining your cloudy crystal ball is a job for Glenn Beck, and not the OP.

But if you look at history, pretty much every time there's a midterm election during a recession, the incumbent party loses seats in Congress.

So your WAG is likely to come true. And you will attribute each victory to...what? What does Rush say?
post #30 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleStud View Post

You must not watch these networks much if you think none of them "lean" to the left. Do yourself a favor and watch Roland Martin, Keith Olberman, Wolf Blitzer, or any of those characters. Then see which direction they lean towards. Obviously Fox News is right-leaning. But MSNBC is the hardest-leaning liberal channel on earth, and they aren't vilified for some reason.

MSNBC is owned by rich white men who would do anything and everything to preserve the current capitalistic economic system. They are far, far from "leftists". The last thing in the world that they would support is worker ownership of the means of production.

Get real.
post #31 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Any self-proclaimed 'news' organization that manipulates the masses in such an overt way is despicable in my book. ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11014504

Yet you quote the BBC?!


A vulgar, propaganda spewing, socialist ideals emitting, nation suppressing, asshole of an institution.
Never trust the BBC.
post #32 of 107
Borrowing a television show for .99 cents is way too expensive. It should be a quarter (if that).

Most people watch a particular television episode once and only once. .99 cents is way too expensive for that... .99 for a song I listen to dozens and dozens of time is worth it.

Unlike music, I can imagine most people would have very little problem with downloading a missed episode of their favorite show from a torrent, watching it, then discarding it...
post #33 of 107
DJRumpy, you are hilarious!
post #34 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Any any sane person would view the fact that Fox is the 'only news channel that leans to the right' to mean that Fox is extreme and out of the mainstream since all other news channels would be by definition more mainstream.

This became a political topic when it involved Murdock since he a highly prominent and political figure. The fact that Apple would do business with this man is reprehensible.

Isn't "mainstream" meant to convey what the entire population thinks -- rather than a few so-called "journalists" who try to tell the population what to think?

I get my news from several sources -- and consider that each purveyor of news has a bias or an agenda.

Neither, Fox, NBC, nor you can decide what I believe -- that is my decision alone.

You have to seek the truth -- it cannot be freely given or received!

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #35 of 107
Imagine that, a media baron using the press to influence the outcome of an election in order to make things more conducive to said media baron's business interests, in the USA, who ever would have thought such a thing was possible.

/sarcasm
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #36 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleStud View Post

since when did this site become a political blog? Get a life.

For the record, Fox News is the ONLY network that leans to the right. Every other network is clearly left-leaning (CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC etc). Can't republicans have ONE channel to turn to and see opinions they agree with? Chill out.

If fox would admit that they are presenting opinions for republicans to agree with, then I would say yes, but they don't. Fox claims to report news. Fox creates news by letting people like Beck make batsh!t crazy statements and pretending that the protests they create and promote are grassroots.
post #37 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by crustyjusty View Post

I find the viewpoint that the online sale of music inadvertently torpedoed CD sales to laughable.

What torpedoed CD sales was that physical copies of music offer no benefit to downloaded versions. They're more expensive, stores have incomplete selection and I have to drive to get them. This is the same issue that newspapers and books are running into (I know, reading a real book just feels better, but 2x the price better?).

I'll have to assume that you don't really listen critically to your music, or at least not on anything more than earbuds. A downloaded track has nowhere near the detail nor dynamic range of a CD, as it's both compressed, in a bitstream sense, and compressed, in a musical sense. That's a real benefit of CDs (and vinyl...) to some, who still *listen* to their music as a foreground activity.

Also, as others have mentioned, CDs are albums, with planned multitrack content (often, amazingly, longer than 2-3 minutes per track . That's a benefit to some, who who still *listen* to their music as a foreground activity, and aren't afflicted with ADD.

I won't defend CD pricing, though... greed is everywhere.

As a related issue, people are loving downloading/streaming "HD" content to their new flatscreen TVs, without realizing that the actual amount of data used to render a pixel has been severely limited from that in a Blu-Ray or DVD. A 25:1 compression makes a downloaded HD movie more or less equivalent to a regular old NTSC or PAL signal, OK for an iPad or iPhone, but not much else without losing all the visual detail they likely bought the TV for in the first place. Not an issue for a casual watcher, but critical for a critical one.

Most audio/visual content these days is targeted at non-critical, non-savvy, casual and impatient consumers. While marketed as quality, the product is actually crap.

Back to media barons, we'd buy more papers if they'd employ more editors...
post #38 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleepy Dinosaur View Post

Any news channel who has to use terms like "fair and balanced" in their tag line is anything but...

Why? Because you say so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Nice misdirection there. I could care less about the 'dems' and their projected losses. I care about Murdock.

As a stockholder, I DO care about the folks Apple gets in bed with, as should you.

Good. I'm glad you agree with me that Al Gore should step down from the board of directors at Apple for all the FUD he spread about global warming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

MSNBC is owned by rich white men who would do anything and everything to preserve the current capitalistic economic system. They are far, far from "leftists". The last thing in the world that they would support is worker ownership of the means of production.

Get real.

Of course they are going to be rich, how many broadcasting companies are owned by poor people? Just because someone is rich doesn't make them a capitalist, or have any regards for the capitalistic system. Is Obama a capitalist because he's a millionaire? His spread the wealth mentality tells me no. Not sure why you have to point out that they are white, never noticed, never cared.

Murdock is a business man, Steve Jobs is a business man. Both have products that are highly desirable in the center-right country we live in. Don't like it? Switch to Google. As a company they are much more left-leaning.
Just say no to MacMall.  They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries.  There are better retailers out there.
Reply
Just say no to MacMall.  They don't honor their promotions and won't respond to customer inquiries.  There are better retailers out there.
Reply
post #39 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Imagine that, a media baron using the press to influence the outcome of an election in order to make things more conducive to said media baron's business interests, in the USA, who ever would have thought such a thing was possible.

/sarcasm

Do da name William Randolph Hearst strike a familiar note?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #40 of 107
How did it twist to where iTunes destroyed the industry.

Digital music destroyed music more than the industry; and if they think they are now getting so much less from single track sales...

So we've gone from 70min to 700min on a CD, a tenth the data, lost the subsonics and anti-aliased the nuance out. There is no product per se, so no production - retailer costs. You can no longer bequeath it (alive or dead) to anyone, it's not even sellable, it has no value. People don't have $2000 iTunes collections, they have $0 iTunes collections that they spent $2000 for the marginal right to listen to.

Even the ol' 99c story is false, iTunes upped it's price in three gentle phases, now there's not even a DRM cost. No one even blinked. (AU $1.29 -> $1.69).

As for albums fetching more return, is it true? Do people buy less quantity of music, or since it is chump change and instant are they spending the same or more.

They are raking it in on a cost/income basis.

As for the producers of tv shows, the retail price isn't their sale. They sell a batch to KMart, you might buy it a couple of months later for 1/2 price. The producer though has already cut and run.

I'd say their main opposition isn't a 99c retail price point. It's that they don't want to switch from lump sum to accumulation, it also changes who bares the risk; not like Apple cares if you don't sell many units of a crap show. KMart already paid, Apple only pays per sale, the file space is irrelevant.

Apple could change tactics. Offer the studios a flat lump sum, like a physical retailer, deal is Apple keeps the money. Offer two flat fees. Right to sell for 5 years or right to sell in perpetuity. Either that or 99c. Want neither, fine, we're moving to this model and only that content will be available on iTunes.

Alternatively offer the video houses a free financial consultant to help show them how they can transition from a lump sum to an accumulation model.

Either way they should see the value in selling nothing for money instead of having to go through all the trouble of making something for money.
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Rupert Murdoch may be swing vote in Apple's 99 cent TV rental pitch