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' - Page 2

post #41 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogerman2000 View Post

2) Maybe you should do your job instead if attempting insults.

Woah there! This job doesnt pay anything and as much as I would like to see some people banned expecting the mods to ban whomever we want isnt a good way to run this forum.

On top of that, its all pretty pointless as they can just sign up with a new name (and even a new IP address) essentially giving them a clean slate. The best way to manage this may our self control (myself included) to ignore these posters and help others do the same.

PS: I know with vBulletin you can change the Registered User to some other text. Perhaps these posters could be marked for all time to let newer users know to take them with a grain of salt.
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 #42 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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.

Both Microsoft and Apple have a stake in media distribution's future. They both want to be in control of it, thus they downplay physical media (which they don't control) and talk up downloads (which they could control).

Their statements are mere PR fluff rather than any technical assessment of physical media's future.
post #43 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Both Microsoft and Apple have a stake in media distribution's future. They both want to be in control of it, thus they downplay physical media (which they don't control) and talk up downloads (which they could control).

Their statements are mere PR fluff rather than any technical assessment of physical media's future.

I disagree. I think Blu-ray has a long future as a home entertainment appliance but I see it as irrelevant for most PC users, especially notebook users, for many reasons, and think paid* digital streaming will will outstrip DVD sales and rentals long before Blu-ray does.



* I qualify that with paid because digital streaming as a whole is likely already more popular than all optical media playback combined. We can say that VoD on cable and satellite, ad supported sites like Hulu or the various networks around the world, or short clips form Vimeo, YouTube and other sites dont count, but they do because for every minute your eyeballs are watching a Slow Loris being tickled that is one minute they are not watching other content. That is all that matters in the end.
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 #44 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.

Can't speak much to cable since I don't have it, but of all the broadcast networks ABC is about the only station we watch, they by far have some of the best shows. I honestly can't say I care that any of the other studios join, only shows I'd likely rent would be ABC shows anyway.
post #45 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

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.

Buy the show in iTunes, stream it via AirPlay. I don't see how ANYONE is jumping to the conclusion that because it is an TV you HAVE to rent the streamed content. It's your choice, even if that isn't what is mentioned by Apple when they talk about streaming and the convenience of ordering onscreen at the drop of a hat.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #46 of 54
I don't see how 99c an episode isn't a winner for the networks. Are those boxed sets of TV shows really bringing in that much money? But to be compelling to me it would have to be <99c for rentals and maybe 99c for purchase. Anything else and I just feel ripped off so I don't buy it.
post #47 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

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.

Hey, if the streets aren't going to be policed, the moral high ground has already been declared to be absent. Then it becomes a means of survival through identification of those who threaten the societies cohesion.

Posters leave forums over trolls, I have in other places several times along with significant percentages of the casual visitors. This is one of the last places I hang out and I don't want to go hunting for a new less messed up venue if I can avoid it, it's not too bad here yet. But if I have to I will, or just junk forums altogether. In the meantime I will pass the message that we don't want them to win. It's not flaming, that would be counterproductive.

Unless EVERYONE ignores the troll, eliminating even the possibility of the troll's posts being quoted, a single poster ignoring the troll does no good to the overall situation. Since socially that's not going to happen, repeated explicit exposure is a course of action. All that would be moot in a heartbeat if the troll were to go away and sock puppet prohibitions actually be enforced too.


Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

This “job” [mods & admins] doesn’t pay anything and as much as I would like to see some people banned expecting the mods to ban whomever we want isn’t a good way to run this forum.

True on the job part. Admins and Mods are not usually paid on boards like this, they are volunteering for everyones benefit.

Fora are not bound by the restriction on speech the US Government is bound by. The Admins and Mods choose the tenor they want on the boards, whether by active decision or plain lack of action. I think this is often forgotten in the misapplied "free speech" ideal. Speech has consequences and when the consequences are removed from the equation, everyone suffers. I don't think anyone wants an accidental annoyer or someone having a bad day banned, things get said which would best not be said in those situations, but they recede away quickly. Serial violators who don't debate, just bait, become obvious due to their consistency over a couple days at most.

This place doesn't need to become 4chan where anyone can say anything, the Internet already has it's black hole and it can stay there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

On top of that, it’s all pretty pointless as they can just sign up with a new name (and even a new IP address) essentially giving them a clean slate. The best way to manage this may our self control (myself included) to ignore these posters and help others do the same.

A little Python scripting on logged IPs can go a long way for not a lot of effort...
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #48 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

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

post #49 of 54
How does $.99 for a rental of an episode not work? Is $12 per season (instead of 9.99 for a DVD), and the user does not keep it, so if you want to re-watch you have to pay once again. Of course a lot more could be made from running the TV ads, but as far as commercial free content goes, I think $.99 is a good price and something people would actually be willing to pay.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #50 of 54
What I'm having a really hard time understanding is the NBC guy's comment that the Apple model doesn't work for them... but Netflix does?! $0.99 per episode vs. $7.99/month? This makes absolutely no sense to me.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #51 of 54
Have any of these Execs looked beyond their office window and can honestly justify why I as a consumer would pay more than 99cents for a 20 min show when I also pay $1 for a Redbox 2hr movie? Where's the logic here? Why can these movies rent for a $1 but not a tv show previously aired for free with commercials? This is pure greed and lack of true understanding of your market.

Hulu can do it free with commercials which are much shorter than tv commercials... Id even take this route too.

I would prefer Apple to offer a monthly $8-10 a month and stream whatever you want just like Netflix. I still think Netflix has the best business model.
post #52 of 54
It's not going to happen. I worked in the music biz, still do but now in writing sing, music supervision, feature films, etc. Know network wants too go down in flames like the music biz.

First, the networkshave control over their content and normally show it FOR FREE but also controls advertising. Plus Apples business model and the fact that these Apple portable devices won't olay on them only hurts Apple. We're getting to a point where shows are shoeing up on the web the same day aired, plus speeds are reaching 60 mb as the norm with 100, then 100MB soon and I see the net as the next platform for new networks, shows, producers, editors, etc and they do not want to be bogged down with Apple. The only thing I see is maybe past seasons offered or a subscription rate as if as a consumer you watch 4 shows a night times 30, that's $120 or $240. Not going to happen on the consumer end. Besides. Most people I know that have Apple TV use boxee and have it hacked to play torrents mpegs/Avis/720, so I just don't see this happening.

Blessings.
post #53 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

Digital Distribution is the future of television!*

*(provided you only want to watch a limited selection of Disney/ABC and Fox programming)

Agreed. All the new shows, producers, actors, editors. Post music will all be digital. The TV as we know it is soon to go. All newer tvs will be Internet ready.
post #54 of 54
My Apple TV is getting closer.




Sep 28, 2010 10:52 AM Arrived at FedEx location ANCHORAGE, AK


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'