or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Viacom also opposed to Apple's 99 cent TV rentals, CBS will 'see what happens'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Viacom also opposed to Apple's 99 cent TV rentals, CBS will 'see what happens'

post #1 of 54
Thread Starter 
Viacom's chief executive explained that Apple's 99 cent TV rental plan "doesn't work" for the company, while CBS is waiting to see the numbers for rentals of ABC and Fox show.

The comments came during a media executive conference hosted by Goldman Sachs and covered by the Wall Street Journal.

"The 99-cent rental is not a good price point," said Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman. "It doesn't work for us."

As the owner of cable networks like Comedy Central and Nickelodeon, Viacom "invests heavily to produce its content," Dauman noted. Viacom is planning to increase its investment in original content.

"We value our content a lot," Dauman said. "We don't think Apple has it quite right yet."

Viacom's not the only network holding out on Apple. Les Moonves, chief executive at CBS, is still on the fence about the deal. Moonves complimented Apple, but opted to wait to see how the other two networks fare.

"What we said to themand the Apple guys are terrific and obviously the application is terrificis let us see what happens," Moonves said. "There are two networks in and two networks not in. Let's see what happens and maybe we'll talk again in January, maybe we'll talk again next year."

On Wednesday, NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker expressed his dissatisfaction with Apple's aggressive pricing. "We do not think 99 cents is the right price point for our content," NBC Universal Chief Executive Zucker said. "We thought it would devalue our content."

NBC and Apple have clashed over pricing before. In 2007, the network pulled its video offerings from the iTunes Store after Apple refused to double wholesale prices.

Chase Carey, chief operating officer of Fox's parent company News Corp., was willing to take a "short-term" risk on the rental plan. "I think we have to be willing to test some things," Carey said. Earlier reports suggested that News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch agreed to the lower pricing in hopes of partnering with Apple on a news venture designed for the iPad. Murdoch sees the iPad as a golden opportunity for news organizations to transition to the digital era.

Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC, was reportedly the first network on board. CEO Robert Iger wants to be a leader in adoption digital technologies.

"We made a decision five years agoactually when I got this jobthat we would be much better off aligning with technology companies than fighting them," said Iger.

Fox and ABC remain the first two studios to agree to the 99 cent rentals. Apple announced the new partnership alongside the unveiling of its redesigned Apple TV device.

"We think the rest of the studios will see the light and get on board pretty fast," said Apple CEO Steve Jobs on Sept. 1.
post #2 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"We value our content a lot," Dauman said.

Oops. Mr. Dauman has it wrong (unsurprisingly). How much he (or they) value their content is completely irrelevant. It's how much consumers value the content that matters. If consumers don't value it any higher than 99 cents an episode, they won't pay more than 99 cents. Same story for Zucker.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #3 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Oops. Mr. Dauman has it wrong (unsurprisingly). How much he (or they) value their content is completely irrelevant. It's how much consumers value the content that matters. If consumers don't value it any higher than 99 cents an episode, they won't pay more than 99 cents. Same story for Zucker.

That is absolutely true, I even think $0.99 for renting a 20 min episode is still too much. Why don't they run ads at the beginning of an episodes and provide the content for free (as an option) is beyond me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Steve has no shame whatsoever. He'll say anything.

And you'll twist anything. Are you preparing for a job interview at Fox News?
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #4 of 54
There is nothing that I would watch on Viacom for free. So, their opinion is irrelevant to me. I've been cable-less for six years. Netflix and iTunes fill the entertainment niche for me and my wife so well that we will never go back to cable. I think that is the direction that most consumers are headed. The content producers can fight it. But, they will end up on the losing end of that battle.
post #5 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

That is absolutely true, I even think $0.99 for renting a 20 min episode is still too much. Why don't they run ads at the beginning of an episodes and provide the content for free (as an option) is beyond me.

That's not how Apple is positioning itself with advertising-driven revenue. As their iAd platform clearly shows, they want their customers to "experience" the advertising. Maybe if iAds migrate to the television screen, then maybe shows paid for by ads will come to Apple's delivery network.

I know one thing for sure... I will happily pay $0.99 to avoid mind-numbing time-wasting ads.
post #6 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Steve has no shame whatsoever. He'll say anything.

Pot, meet kettle.
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #7 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Viacom's chief executive explained that Apple's 99 cent TV rental plan "doesn't work" for the company, while CBS is waiting to see the numbers for rentals of ABC and Fox show.

Selling more content "doesn't work" for Viacom, apparently.
post #8 of 54
Great he can sit on his ass and I and my friends will continue to watch all our shows for free, and ad free. Better to get 99c than nothing.
post #9 of 54
So I wonder where Amazon will get the shows they plan to SELL for 99c to Android users.

If these studio's jack up over a 99c rental, I can't see how they'd go for a 99c sale.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #10 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Oops. Mr. Dauman has it wrong (unsurprisingly). How much he (or they) value their content is completely irrelevant. It's how much consumers value the content that matters. If consumers don't value it any higher than 99 cents an episode, they won't pay more than 99 cents. Same story for Zucker.

you are correct. unless i can purchase, keep and distribute as i see fit, $.99 is just about as much as i'm willing to pay for a rental and not a penny more. these guys will learn the hard way.
post #11 of 54
Well, I'm thinking of a scenario. Google TV is going to be able to run apps. Individual content creators will probably want to take advantage of that, bypassing the networks and middlemen altogether. Then the networks might see that as a bigger threat and sign up with Apple to retain whatever control they could. Then once Apple got all the networks, Apple flip the apps switch, and the networks are left scrambling, leaving Apple to be THE "network" for iptv.
post #12 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolfactor View Post

That's not how Apple is positioning itself with advertising-driven revenue. As their iAd platform clearly shows, they want their customers to "experience" the advertising. Maybe if iAds migrate to the television screen, then maybe shows paid for by ads will come to Apple's delivery network.

I know one thing for sure... I will happily pay $0.99 to avoid mind-numbing time-wasting ads.

Jobs theory of watching TV, as he once explained, it's where you "turn off your brain". iAds are supposed to be interactive which would go against SJ's theory. And besides, one of the main advantages of an iAd is to keep the visitor in the App rather than take him to a separate website, a problem which does not exist in the TV world.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #13 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

And you'll twist anything. Are you preparing for a job interview at Fox News?

You mean MSNBC or the Obama Administration don't you?! Oh wait, they are one and the same! My bad...

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
post #14 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by pika2000 View Post

Well, I'm thinking of a scenario. Google TV is going to be able to run apps. Individual content creators will probably want to take advantage of that, bypassing the networks and middlemen altogether. Then the networks might see that as a bigger threat and sign up with Apple to retain whatever control they could. Then once Apple got all the networks, Apple flip the apps switch, and the networks are left scrambling, leaving Apple to be THE "network" for iptv.

Yes, it will be interesting to see what google comes up with, with their YT platform they'll have massive leverage capabilities. Moreover, Google will be willing to integrate their platform into upcoming TV sets (just plug your TV into a network), something that Apple will most probably not entertain.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #15 of 54
Digital Distribution is the future of television!*

*(provided you only want to watch a limited selection of Disney/ABC and Fox programming)
post #16 of 54
I completely agree with Viacom, 99 cents is the wrong price point. It should be 29 or for a good show 39 cents...that still maybe asking too much.
post #17 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Steve has no shame whatsoever. He'll say anything.

And so will you. Even with high priced Super Bowl ads only earns a gross of $0.30 per viewer half hour of programming. Studios get $0.70 gross per rental. Assuming an average of two people per rental, the studios still come out ahead. Exactly HOW is the rental price a bad deal for the studio?

If you want to keep being a nut, that's fine, but siding against Apple on absolutely everything because it's Apple doesn't prove you're smart, it just proves you're a hater.
post #18 of 54
Viacom - to the back of the queue behind NBC for a review in 6-months.

Apple should expand iTunes stores to countries with it's App Stores (70 or so) & punch out willing participants' content globally. When "...the rest of the studios will see the light..." it'll only be 5 months to go.

Iger's on the money, if the bigger players don't want to adapt they can become the smaller players and down-size their staff accordingly. Starting from the top.

I wonder how AirPlay will overcome the WiFi guest login issue i.e. how to get regular users to set up multiple logins to avoid giving out their passwords. Maybe Apple TV will create it's own passwordless network for AirPlay traffic only.

McD
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
post #19 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogerman2000 View Post

It's a real pity Appleinsider refuses to ban this troll in the name of hits.

Interesting hypothesis, but sorry, hits are never a consideration.
post #20 of 54
We all just watch over the air via DVR's and skip all commercials.

So much for program value.
post #21 of 54
I'm struggling to see the alternative when the complaint is that

Quote:
"The 99-cent rental is not a good price point," said Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman. "It doesn't work for us."

What's the alternative business model? 99-cents is a tolerable price and flat rates are consumer friendly. No higher price is going to seem right compared to $2.99 sales. Holdouts are only leaving money on the table. This seems more about protecting inflexible business models that worked once upon a time rather than smart distribution.
post #22 of 54
At least the new Apple TV has some TV content in the US. Here in the UK it's got absolutely zero TV content. Not a single show, from anyone.

Of course Apple could have implemented the BBC's free iPlayer API into the Apple TV, as countless manufacturers have done with TVs, BD Players, game consoles etc, but I guess Apple's usual 'US is all that matters' attitude won out again.

Maybe if they'd gone the app route that would have allowed each broadcaster to test the waters in their own way, see what sells and what doesn't.
post #23 of 54
Here's a thought, so this new Apple TV is streaming only, but what does that mean rental only? I'm told that when you buy a TV show or movie from the Zune Marketplace you own it in the cloud, and so can download or stream it to any device you like, from Windows Phone, to Xbox 360, to the desktop client.

Wouldn't that have been an option for Apple? That way studios could sell and/or rent their content at their discretion, and the lack of local storage on the ATV would be irrelevant, as everything would be streamed regardless.
post #24 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

At least the new Apple TV has some TV content in the US. Here in the UK it's got absolutely zero TV content. Not a single show, from anyone.

Of course Apple could have implemented the BBC's free iPlayer API into the Apple TV, as countless manufacturers have done with TVs, BD Players, game consoles etc, but I guess Apple's usual 'US is all that matters' attitude won out again.

Maybe if they'd gone the app route that would have allowed each broadcaster to test the waters in their own way, see what sells and what doesn't.

Not sure what your complaint against Apple is. As a Brit living on the Continent, I have a complaint against BBC: They won't make any content available outside UK. I would gladly pay. The iPlayer is great (for iPad; I don't like the full desktop web version conforming to the new iPad style -- I liked the old web page layout better). I used iPlayer on my iPad a lot when I was in UK last month. But that is not the issue...

BBC definitely needs to make their content available to the world somehow. BBC could make a ton of money because people all over the world like me want to watch their content. I can only assume that they fear that their servers would not be able to handle it. Therefore, something like iTunes Marketplace seems like the ideal solution for them -- let Apple take the strain of all the hits and streaming, and let Apple monetize it for them with the millions of credit cards already attached to iTunes accounts. I believe that Apple takes care of the encoding also, so no need to worry about testing the waters by including individual studio APIs within iTunes. Just encode a few episodes of something popular like Top Gear (that's not my favorite mind you, I am just assuming it's popular around the world).

The "App Route" as you call it, is already there -- I can get the iPlayer app showing up on my iPad right now: I just can't access any content because the BBC knows I am connecting from outside the UK! How is that an Apple issue? Countless manufacturers? On devices sold in UK, yeah. UK residents pay their TV license, so you get the content free, and ad-free; so to have BBC content played within iTunes for UK residents is moot -- and no need for you to send it to ATV, it's already on your TV! So, I'm not sure what your issue is. But if BBC opened up their content internationally for iTunes to sell it at 29p a pop, they would have millions of takers! Let's see it!

I for one would love to have the option to pay the BBC something like the Annual TV License Fee. I might even pay 29p per episode. Then again, the kids like loads of CBBC stuff like Blue Peter, etc., so that could get pricey. In the case of BBC, I would hope there would be some kind of flat monthly rate to watch everything, because we would watch a lot of stuff from BBC. ABC, etc. we would watch perhaps one or two shows per week. As it is, I suppose people could use a proxy server of some kind and bypass the geographic restriction (but you didn't hear that from me).

The whole point of this discussion is that the studios are balking at making money. Apple is handing them a business model on a silver platter, with the infrastructure and a worldwide audience of consumers thrown in; and the studios still want to play in their own little sandboxes and try to re-invent their own little lemonade stands all on their own. It's ridiculous.

[edit:] I just checked iTunes Stores. As I thought, there is a TV Channels & Studios drop down category. BBC has its own page; again, the issue is not the iPlayer API, it's international licensing and availability. I can buy an espisode from UK Store for £1.49, or from USA Store at $2.99 (but that is far too expensive). So what are talking about, absolutely zero content??? I can't buy BBC content from the Netherlands Store, why not? The NL Store has absolutely zero content -- there isn't even a TV Programmes menu in the NL Store. And if one can buy the content (in some places), why not elsewhere? I think the studios want to sell their content to national cable companies around the world rather than to iTunes. Sad. And if one can buy, why not be able to rent or view at a lower rate? I don't use a local cable package. I access content on my computer or iPad. And I travel a lot. I could be paying (the BBC) for BBC content where ever I am in the world. I thought the BBC were ahead of the curve. The BBC should be chomping at the bit.
post #25 of 54
99 cent rental is NOT do-able. Nobody in their right mind is going to pay that. I might as well get cable or Dish if that's the price. And I'm not interested in owning an episode of How I Met...
post #26 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolfactor View Post

That's not how Apple is positioning itself with advertising-driven revenue. As their iAd platform clearly shows, they want their customers to "experience" the advertising. Maybe if iAds migrate to the television screen, then maybe shows paid for by ads will come to Apple's delivery network.

That's a good idea: Each show will download packaged with a couple of iAds that you may watch or not at your liking. >>> Lower pricing for customers and higher revenue for studios. It's a win win situation. And in addition some advertising studios will have to rise their sometimes unbelievable ugly makeshift ads to get recognized.
post #27 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post

Not sure what your complaint against Apple is. As a Brit living on the Continent, I have a complaint against BBC: They won't make any content available outside UK. I would gladly pay. The iPlayer is great (for iPad; I don't like the full desktop web version conforming to the new iPad style -- I liked the old web page layout better). I used iPlayer on my iPad a lot when I was in UK last month. But that is not the issue...


The "App Route" as you call it, is already there -- I can get the iPlayer app showing up on my iPad right now: I just can't access any content because the BBC knows I am connecting from outside the UK! How is that an Apple issue? Countless manufacturers? On devices sold in UK, yeah. UK residents pay their TV license, so you get the content free, and ad-free; so to have BBC content played within iTunes for UK residents is moot -- and no need for you to send it to ATV, it's already on your TV! So, I'm not sure what your issue is. But if BBC opened up their content internationally for iTunes to sell it at 29p a pop, they would have millions of takers! Let's see it!
.

You're talking about a completely different issue here. It sucks you can't get BBC content abroad but as I live in the UK that's not a problem I have. My gripe was with Apple not integrating iPlayer into the new Apple TV. They stripped out Netflix (as it's US and Canada only), but replaced it with absolutely nothing. iPlayer would have filled the gap to a degree.

Of course all the content is aired here for free, but iPlayer is all about on demand which is why it's been such a hit on so many devices. For a video on demand IPTV box like ATV, it's such a no brainer to include it really boggles the mind why Apple couldn't be bothered. The BBC want iPlayer EVERYWHERE, on every TV, every BD player, every set top box, every phone, every game console, you name it. The only big place where it isn't available is on the Xbox 360, as Microsoft refused the BBC's conditions that the content must be free.

I think the BBC content currently on sale in the iTunes store is something of a joke. The reviews are usually just people saying ' watch it on iPlayer for free', and the pricing is beyond ridiculous. Plus most of it isn't even in high-def. It's telling too that you can actually download iPlayer content for offline viewing on other, non Apple phones, but Apple apparently won't let the BBC into their DRM.
post #28 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Interesting hypothesis, but sorry, hits are never a consideration.

Then what could possibly be the reason for not banning that clown? I have him on ignore and I still have to read his inane dribble posted as quotes if I am to follow the thread.
post #29 of 54
Hello Mr. Exec (aka: moron),

Your highly valuable content is not so valuable. I cancelled my cable over 6 months ago and have not looked back. You know what? Raise or lower the price to whatever you want because I'm not buying it anyway. In fact, if you had not been quoted on an apple-centric site, I wouldn't even know you're still alive. Great business plan, that.

Sincerely,
The Consumer
post #30 of 54
If $1 rental and $3 sales makes up for $millions of commercial revenue I don't have a clue. I understand it's not an easy choice. But if this pricepoint attracts a lot of consumers to moving away from the TV network in favor of digital rental/ VOD/ Apple TV... it's just the way of the future.

PS. Anyone that comes up with a commercial free pay model for movies and TV-content that both consumers and networks like should get the nobel peace price or something.
post #31 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

If $1 rental and $3 sales makes up for $millions of commercial revenue I don't have a clue. I understand it's not an easy choice. But if this pricepoint attracts a lot of consumers to moving away from the TV network in favor of digital rental/ VOD/ Apple TV... it's just the way of the future.

PS. Anyone that comes up with a commercial free pay model for movies and TV-content that both consumers and networks like should get the nobel peace price or something.

I just rented Wall Street (old one) for $2.99 on iTunes. Acceptable. More importantly, I'm less shocked at the utter rubbish people like these Viacom and NBC fools say. Half of the management has no clue and they're backed by institutional investors that have even less. Throw in the fact that everybody's out for a buck and it all starts to make sense, with or without sensationalist characters as depicted in movies.

What I do know is that Viacom ain't getting more of my money for Futurama. I stopped after buying the first six episodes. It's great, but not worth $1.99 each (for standard def, IIRC). Not when free is staring you in the face. Well, ABC got my bucks for Lost final season, and Fox is getting some for The Cleveland Show (actually funny and outrageous, I find). Content I would very, very unlikely have purchased not rented.

I'm outside the US anyway so I'm far, far down the list of consumers US content producers give a shit about, even though if you look at the content consumers eg. on torrents, it's a real global audience that enjoys US content.
post #32 of 54
MS also now realizes that physical media for entertainment is not the future.
http://www.dailytech.com/Microsoft+P...ticle19698.htm I just hope people can stop be disappointed when Blu-ray doesnt show up in the next Mac update that still uses 9.5mm drives.
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 #33 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

You mean MSNBC or the Obama Administration don't you?! Oh wait, they are one and the same! My bad...

that is a cute comment but it is worth noting that Bush acctually hired a Fox news reporter into his administration...tony snow...will Obama hire Olberman or Madow once Gibbs flakes out? I doubt it.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #34 of 54
I have a dvr and on demand. Why would I want to rent anyway, especially for more than 99 cents?
rmusikantow
Reply
rmusikantow
Reply
post #35 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmusikantow View Post

I have a dvr and on demand. Why would I want to rent anyway, especially for more than 99 cents?

Are you taking your DVR and cable box with you everywhere you go? Some people do travel and like to have fast access to content. Being able to DL your favorite TV show at a WiFi Hotspot (or even at home) for a flight, road trip, whatever is a nice option to have. Ive done it in the past with purchases for those very reasons even though I planned to only watch them once so a rental would be a 50% reduction in price.

Is it really so alien to watch TV outside of your living rooms HDTV, cable box, DVR, etc.?
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 #36 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 cents View Post

Then what could possibly be the reason for not banning that clown? I have him on ignore and I still have to read his inane dribble posted as quotes if I am to follow the thread.

Speaking for myself, when people "feed the troll" or resort to reciprocal attacks, pile-ons or other forms of vigilantism, I have a hard time sympathizing with those that complain about it, a lot of the complainants become just as guilty.
post #37 of 54
There is talk of iPlayer international but I've seen no details yet.
iPlayer is being superceded by Project Canvas/YouView - it would be great to have AppleTV support for this.
Lovefilm have an equivelent streaming service in the UK to Netflx - where is our support?
post #38 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post

There is talk of iPlayer international but I've seen no details yet.
iPlayer is being superceded by Project Canvas/YouView - it would be great to have AppleTV support for this.
Lovefilm have an equivelent streaming service in the UK to Netflx - where is our support?

I think if anyone has a chance of making their content worldwide, its the BBC.
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 #39 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I think if anyone has a chance of making their content worldwide, it’s the BBC.

BBC Director-General Mark Thompson said this a few weeks back:

"Within a year we aim to launch an international commercial version of the iPlayer. Subject to Trust approval, we also want to find a way of letting UK licence payers and servicemen and servicewomen use a version of the UK BBC iPlayer wherever they are in the world."

The TV producers (just like the big movie studios in Hollywood) aren't taking it well but if the BBC say they're doing it, it's going to be hard for the TV producers to keep saying no and then explain to their shareholders that they rejected the BBC taking their shows to a bigger audience in more places around the world.
post #40 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogerman2000 View Post

Hypothesis or fact? Right.

You believe what you want to believe, but that doesn't make it a fact.

Quote:
You shouldn't speak for yourself, you should represent this site in a dignified manner and ban those who are very clearly trolling for responses to dead end comments. There is no excuse other than for hits and exposure, period.

You're being overly simplistic in your assumption and understanding of things. Maybe I should take your simplistic mindset and assume you're trying to troll the moderators?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Viacom also opposed to Apple's 99 cent TV rentals, CBS will 'see what happens'