or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Time Warner CEO says Apple 99-cent rental model 'jeopardizes' sales
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Time Warner CEO says Apple 99-cent rental model 'jeopardizes' sales - Page 2

post #41 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You might to rethink your post.

You paid for or are renting a PVR. You pay for your cable/sat that is used to pay for these huge fees they pay to get access to these channels. Then you also have commercials within these shows.

None of it is free. Dont be so myopic to think everyone could stop paying for cable, just get free downloads and the cable/sat would still be able to pay the networks for access to their content and that advertisers would still be willing to pay the same for content that could have the ads easily removed.

Where exactly do you think the profits wil come from? An á la carte service for a rented episode. No! They depend on the bulk payments from cable and sat companies. You can through out all the ifs and buts about people renting x-many shows but that is at the risk of destroying large guaranteed lump payments. No one here would be that foolish with their own finances. or maybe you would be. Who here takes their paycheck and buys lottery tickets with most of it?

What the Warner CEO is exactly what Ive been saying is the issue here and that isnt likely to change.

PS: Why do people keep comparing these services as being identical when they are very different in every expect for the fact they contain the same content. One is sent at the time of broadcast, the other can be rented at will after the first day. One is limited to your PVR, the other can be sent to you AppleTV, iDevice, PC with iTunes and moved between them with ease. If I am going on a flight and the inflight entertainment is crap (as it usually is, not to mention the horrible displays they use on seat backs) Id be happy to rent some TVs shows to pass the time. Its been awhile, but I purchased them in the past specifically for this task. Who here is going to argue that taking your HDTV and PVR on a trip is viable or that its so easy for the average person to hack your PVR, connect it to a network, convert the MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 and then add to iTunes and sync to iDevice. Get real!

I can buy any DVD, or an entire series, pop in the DVD, fire up handbrake, and tell it to give me an iPhone compatible format, which I just drop into iTunes. I can take it anywhere, on my iPhone, my MediaPC, or my Desktop. It takes no skill to encode a DVD these days. There are numerous 1-Click turn key solutions that are free.

The executives are clinging to a price point that is no longer sustainable. I can stream this stuff from Netflix on my phone, desktop, or media PC as well, plus I get an unlimited number of times to stream or order a DVD for 8 dollars a month, for any show out of the thousands that they offer. If I were to get charged $2.00 per episode I streamed or for every DVD I ordered, it would cost a small fortune.

It's overpriced in todays environment.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #42 of 85
Let's see.
With his line of thinking, movies on DVD's, Pay per view, streaming, or cable tv are taking money from movie theaters by selling or renting at a much lower price.
I don't go to movie theaters anymore. I wait for the movie to come out on DVD and rent it via Netflix for $9 a month.
So if it costs me $40 to take my wife and two kids to a theater, and I'm paying less than $1 per movie a month instead...

How do movie studios not go out of business?

Why are studios allowing this obvious hit to their revenues?

Time Warner and the rest of these greedy morons need to get on board before they're left on the side of the road.
post #43 of 85
The list of content that won't be available looks like it's really going to kill this product. Even if it didn't though I still think the new Apple TV is to little to late.

Particularly in the UK we already have a lot of on demand services. The big channels do it through the internet, BBC do it through almost everything (internet, set top box, Nintendo Wii, iPhone, cable box's) and next year there are meant to be set top box's offering on demand tv from all the big channels as well again for free. The cable companies are also offering on demand programs already, broadband companies like BT offer on demand set top box's (but unlike apple the box is free and you can also subscribe to channels like sports which you kinda want live making it more of a complete package).

So Apple offering the most expensive box, that you then have to pay per program (how do you flick onto a program to see what it's like if you have to pay for it), and also less content than everyone else isn't particularly exciting, as it's going to cost a decent amount and you still need the tv package you have at the moment. They may say it's a hobby which was fine when it was all about stuff you own, now it's about on demand content which is a big market but there products by far the worst except for being the nicest looking box.
post #44 of 85
If those Studios had any brain they would at least put up old shows at 99 cents rentals. How can you refuse Apple 99 cents and then put the same shows on hulu or netflix or for free streaming on there website?

I can understand some studios dont want prime time shows available 1 day after airing, they could add more delay then, maybe a week. Apple could ease off on the delay for some studios.

If the 99 cents shows fail, Apple will need to open up the AppleTV app store so we can get them through other sites (like directly from the studios website, with ads). If studios dont want to make apps, then Apple could enable safari with Flash on the AppleTV and we could go get them anyway.

Apple is making most of its profit selling hardware anyway. Imo a 99 $ AppleTV with games and apps would be the best selling set-top box in the world.
post #45 of 85
CEO says "...that pay hundreds of millions of dollars and make those shows available to loyal viewers for free?" Bewkes said.

Nothing is FREE .. I pay more for EVERYTHING EVERYDAY that is advertised on your TV shows so that you can pay millions of dollars to actors and have long lunches at your favorite trendy restaurant.

I pay about $70 every month to have "FREE" TV piped into my home.. Free is a s ridiculous statement. "Free" TV requires I watch your shows when you schedule them first. "Free" TV requires I sit through most commercials.

Bewkes and other network rocket scientists get the picture, they just don't want to admit their model no longer works well, and unwilling to change.
post #46 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I can buy any DVD, or an entire series, pop in the DVD, fire up handbrake, and tell it to give me an iPhone compatible format, which I just drop into iTunes. I can take it anywhere, on my iPhone, my MediaPC, or my Desktop. It takes no skill to encode a DVD these days. There are numerous 1-Click turn key solutions that are free.

The executives are clinging to a price point that is no longer sustainable. I can stream this stuff from Netflix on my phone, desktop, or media PC as well, plus I get an unlimited number of times to stream or order a DVD for 8 dollars a month, for any show out of the thousands that they offer. If I were to get charged $2.00 per episode I streamed or for every DVD I ordered, it would cost a small fortune.

It's overpriced in todays environment.

That is irrelevant to the average user who doesnt want to learn to do that or go through the effort.
That is irrelevant to the services it offers over streaming sites with no local storage and offline viewing like iTunes Store.
That irrelevant for a fast and convenient download, which can often be done at a coffee shop or airport or hotel before you go on a trip. (this Ive done from iTS and from torrents)

I honestly cant understand how people can be saying that because it isnt ideal for them that it cant possibly be ideal for anyone else. It clearly offers options that the other services dont.
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 #47 of 85
I'd like to see you try to download a podcast or (God-Forbid) a movie on an Airport/coffee/sandwich shop WiFi network. I can barely check my email on my iPhone from those crappy wifi networks without some lag. With all the users logged on that normal Airport/coffee/sandwich shop networks have. Even ATT's Wifi offered in Business districts? Please, let's get realistic here.

I agree that Handbrake is not for the "average" user, personally I really think Apple must get on the ball and support DVD/BD imports from Discs, just like the music CD's I import. It's been way too long since video was introduced into iTunes. Granted it's not all Apple's issue here, it's the Media Giants that control what content is available for iTunes, but come-on SJ...Get with the plan! I am not going to handbrake, and I'm not going to re-purchase my existing physical content. It's bad enough BD came out and now I have to re-purchase some of that.

Personally, I think it's silly to think the "average" user uses Torrents too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That is irrelevant to the average user who doesn’t want to learn to do that or go through the effort.
That is irrelevant to the services it offers over streaming sites with no local storage and offline viewing like iTunes Store.
That irrelevant for a fast and convenient download, which can often be done at a coffee shop or airport or hotel before you go on a trip. (this I’ve done from iTS and from torrents)

I honestly can’t understand how people can be saying that because it isn’t ideal for them that it can’t possibly be ideal for anyone else. It clearly offers options that the other services don’t.
post #48 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That is irrelevant to the average user who doesnt want to learn to do that or go through the effort.
That is irrelevant to the services it offers over streaming sites with no local storage and offline viewing like iTunes Store.
That irrelevant for a fast and convenient download, which can often be done at a coffee shop or airport or hotel before you go on a trip. (this Ive done from iTS and from torrents)

I honestly cant understand how people can be saying that because it isnt ideal for them that it cant possibly be ideal for anyone else. It clearly offers options that the other services dont.

I just bought Fringe season 3 pass on iTunes for 49.99. I have no cable (insane monthly fee), don't have TV anymore. I like to watch stuff on my iMac 27" or iPad. I do not have much time to watch anyway so i can buy 5-6 seasons of shows i like every year and it's still much cheaper than cable. I could buy bluray for about 50, but i need either rip it or watch it on TV both ways involves buying soe tech i don't have anymore and riping bluray will take an insane amount of time.

Oh and of course NO ADS on iTunes + i get to chose when, how and what i want to watch.

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply
post #49 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

I'd like to see you try to download a podcast or (God-Forbid) a movie on an Airport/coffee/sandwich shop WiFi network. I can barely check my email on my iPhone from those crappy wifi networks without some lag. With all the users logged on that normal Airport/coffee/sandwich shop networks have. Even ATT's Wifi offered in Business districts? Please, let's get realistic here.

Ive had good speeds most of the time at the places I mentioned. Not always, but usually fast enough. Especially at a hotel where I DL it overnight if needed.

But why are those the options? Why not from your home? Why does ripping a DVD or watching on Blu-ray (because its the bestest) the only viable options that should exist for all users?

Quote:
I agree that Handbrake is not for the "average" user, personally I really think Apple must get on the ball and support DVD/BD imports from Discs, just like the music CD's I import. It's been way too long since video was introduced into iTunes. Granted it's not all Apple's issue here, it's the Media Giants that control what content is available for iTunes, but come-on SJ...Get with the plan! I am not going to handbrake, and I'm not going to re-purchase my existing physical content. It's bad enough BD came out and now I have to re-purchase some of that.

If the Media Giants control the content and arent even okay with 99¢ rentals, which you think is too much anyway then what program does Steve Jobs need to get with? Apple should close up the iTunes Store video services and make it the same type of service as Hulu and Netflix with streaming only? No local storage with offline viewing? Why is this service overlooked when its a huge benefit over the others mentioned?

Quote:
Personally, I think it's silly to think the "average" user uses Torrents too.

Um, didnt say that the average user should torrent. I clearly mentioned what I have done to satisfy my entertainment needs for long trips without internet access.
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 #50 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas View Post

I just bought Fringe season 3 pass on iTunes for 49.99. I have no cable (insane monthly fee), don't have TV anymore. I like to watch stuff on my iMac 27" or iPad. I do not have much time to watch anyway so i can buy 5-6 seasons of shows i like every year and it's still much cheaper than cable. I could buy bluray for about 50, but i need either rip it or watch it on TV both ways involves buying soe tech i don't have anymore and riping bluray will take an insane amount of time.

Oh and of course NO ADS on iTunes + i get to chose when, how and what i want to watch.

That is a great example for a way this could be used.

I dont even own a TV, and I will use torrents when I can as its just too convenient for me not to. Ive bought many a TV show in the past, but that is if the content isnt available via torrents or would take too long to DL. The problem is would only watch these shows once so having an option for ½ price sounds like a deal to me for those rare occasions. As it stands now I have entire seasons of The Unit, 24, and other shows that will likely never watch again but fear I cant delete because I bought them.
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 #51 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnfrombeyond View Post

People don't want to own TV shows, they would rather rent and not deal with storage etc. Networks are greedy, they don't understand elastic demand. Lower the price for rentals = more revenues.

How many movies have you rented the last 5 years? How many have you purchased?

Case closed...

John,

Regarding movies: As an adult, I agree with you. If you have seen a movie once, why bother seeing it again. But....but.....I have kids. They have certain cartoon classics on DVD that they want to watch over and over and over again. I do not want to pay rent each time to see the same movie or TV show over and over and over again. Therefore, I need to continue buying DVDs of classic movies and TV shows.

I refuse to pay $100 a month for 100+ channels on Dish or cable TV, when all I want is three or four channels. Therefore, I want to own select TV shows. I will wait until a full season of a show is available on DVD. And then I buy the entire season. So what if I have to wait until season 2 to buy season 1 of the Sopranos, Rome, or 24 on DVD.

I don't want to waste money on channels that I refuse to watch. What if I only want to subscribe to one or two channels, and nothing more. Unless cable and satellite TV companies are forced to offer subscription per channel, then nothing will change.
post #52 of 85
Lucky you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I’ve had good speeds most of the time at the places I mentioned. Not always, but usually fast enough. Especially at a hotel where I DL it overnight if needed.

I never said these should be the only options, I just think Apple needs to support imports of our EXISTING physical content already. It's been about 6 years since they introduced video to iTunes. And I was also saying that it's not all Apple's issue. The Media Giants want us to constantly re-purchase content. Because they are Greedy. If you could import existing content, then you could take it everywhere, instead of having to re-purchase or "rent" a movie on-the-go or traveling when you already own on DVD/BD but can't rip it to iTunes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

But why are those the options? Why not from your home? Why does ripping a DVD or watching on Blu-ray (because it’s the bestest) the only viable options that should exist for all users?

I think iTunes should offer rental subscriptions like Amazon or Netflix or now Hulu. that's the program i'm talking about. For the amount of Netflix i watch in a month, I'd have to spend at least $50 - $75 per month on iTunes rentals, that I only pay $18 on Netflix. We get 3-5 discs a week on average, and they are mostly TV series (i.e. True Blood, Star Trek series, etc. sprinkled in with about 3-5 movies we rent per month). Granted when the new seasons of TV are airing we slow down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

If the “Media Giants” control the content and aren’t even okay with 99¢ rentals, which you think is too much anyway then what program does Steve Jobs need to get with? Apple should close up the iTunes Store video services and make it the same type of service as Hulu and Netflix with streaming only? No local storage with offline viewing? Why is this service overlooked when it’s a huge benefit over the others mentioned?

And I did say you said that either. I said it's silly to think that average user actually knows about or regularly uses torrents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Um, didn’t say that the average user should torrent. I clearly mentioned what I have done to satisfy my entertainment needs for long trips without internet access.
post #53 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

Lucky you!

It’s not luck when you plan well.

Quote:
I never said these should be the only options, I just think Apple needs to support imports of our EXISTING physical content already. It's been about 6 years since they introduced video to iTunes. And I was also saying that it's not all Apple's issue. The Media Giants want us to constantly re-purchase content. Because they are Greedy. If you could import existing content, then you could take it everywhere, instead of having to re-purchase or "rent" a movie on-the-go or traveling when you already own on DVD/BD but can't rip it to iTunes.

You think Apple needs to support the imports of DVD VOB files in iTunes? Good luck with that.

Quote:
I think iTunes should offer rental subscriptions like Amazon or Netflix or now Hulu. that's the program i'm talking about. For the amount of Netflix i watch in a month, I'd have to spend at least $50 - $75 per month on iTunes rentals, that I only pay $18. We get 3-5 discs a week on average, and they are mostly TV series (i.e. True Blood, Star Trek series, etc. sprinkled in with about 3-5 movies we rent per month). Granted when the new seasons of TV are airing we slow down.

Why do you think Apple hasn’t tried this? Why do you think that copying what the others are doing is a good business model? If there are several others doing it then why not just use their services? You aren’t looking out for Apple’s best interest so why care if there is a service out there that doesn’t fit your needs? I don’t use Netflix because I hate streaming a TV show series just to have some oddball episode not included, but I don’t think Netflix is shit for everybody because of that.

Quote:
And I did say you said that either. I said it's silly to think that average user actually knows about or regularly uses torrents.

Considering what it was in reply to how could anyone not make that association.

The bottom line is iTS has options the other services don’t and has been very successful with video so far. Trying to force it to be like the other services is silly. It’s akin to those that said the iPad will fail because all previous tablets have failed but then also said it will fail because it’s not doing exactly the same thing as the previous tablets. It makes no sense. The issue with the TV rental service is with the networks and their fear of losing their very real and large lump sum payments from networks and advertisers. There is no one-to-one payoff for the content owners. There is a very real risk of one or more going under this inevitable paradigm shift. It’s going to be messy and there is will be a lot of collateral damage affecting everyone, including the consumer as TV show budgets are likely to be crunched when this comes to a head.
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 #54 of 85
I agree that there are a lot of crap networks out there that I would rather not subscribe to, but I do because it's part of a package.

That being said though, I think what a lot of people don't realize is, if TV went 100% a-la-carte, then once you've watched everything once, how do you find out about new shows? With no commercials, how you find out about new content. For my household, 99% of the new content we find out about is either: 1. Commercials or 2. friends/colleagues. That's how I heard about LOST, a commercial. We hardly ever search for new content via internet. Granted every once in a while i stumble on something. But that's about it. If it went the iTunes model, you'd start hearing crickets coming out of your ATV after a while IMO.

Additionally, without Ads and cable/satv/dish companies, we would have no TV to watch. They play a huge part in the broadcasting of new shows. And I think that's what all the Media Giants are afraid will happen. If that happens where to commercials/previews fit in? We all hate those forced video ads that pop-up and we instantly close them if that option is available, but i digress...

Plus Mr. Pig, I find it surprising that you can't watch a movie more than once? You must have a very short attention span. Granted I don't have a huge library, and I thin it out every once in a while, but I do keep at least 50 of my favorites in the collection at all times. With Netflix, I find myself buying less and less movies, because for the price we pay, I can stand to rent movies a couple times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourgoises Pig View Post

John,

Regarding movies: As an adult, I agree with you. If you have seen a movie once, why bother seeing it again. But....but.....I have kids. They have certain cartoon classics on DVD that they want to watch over and over and over again. I do not want to pay rent each time to see the same movie or TV show over and over and over again. Therefore, I need to continue buying DVDs of classic movies and TV shows.

I refuse to pay $100 a month for 100+ channels on Dish or cable TV, when all I want is three or four channels. Therefore, I want to own select TV shows. I will wait until a full season of a show is available on DVD. And then I buy the entire season. So what if I have to wait until season 2 to buy season 1 of the Sopranos, Rome, or 24 on DVD.

I don't want to waste money on channels that I refuse to watch. What if I only want to subscribe to one or two channels, and nothing more. Unless cable and satellite TV companies are forced to offer subscription per channel, then nothing will change.
post #55 of 85
Dude, you're totally putting a spin on everything I've stated. I offer suggestions and comments related to my best guess of the larger picture/reality, all based on everything i read and hear about a specific topic from friends, family, at work or in the news. However, I do offer my own situations as examples occasionally, since I consider my household a pretty average user family.

You must have good WiFi karma dude, or just travel a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

It’s not luck when you plan well.

No, I never said support VOB. I want support akin to music CD imports into iTunes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You think Apple needs to support the imports of DVD VOB files in iTunes? Good luck with that.

When did Apple offer subscription services? Never.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Why do you think Apple hasn’t tried this? Why do you think that copying what the others are doing is a good business model? If there are several others doing it then why not just use their services? You aren’t looking out for Apple’s best interest so why care if there is a service out there that doesn’t fit your needs? I don’t use Netflix because I hate streaming a TV show series just to have some oddball episode not included, but I don’t think Netflix is shit for everybody because of that.

now you're lumping me into the "Apple products will all fail crowd", please....
You should read my other comments about media giants, we see eye-to-eye there, friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Considering what it was in reply to how could anyone not make that association.

The bottom line is iTS has options the other services don’t and has been very successful with video so far. Trying to force it to be like the other services is silly. It’s akin to those that said the iPad will fail because all previous tablets have failed but then also said it will fail because it’s not doing exactly the same thing as the previous tablets. It makes no sense. The issue with the TV rental service is with the networks and their fear of losing their very real and large lump sum payments from networks and advertisers. There is no one-to-one payoff for the content owners. There is a very real risk of one or more going under this inevitable paradigm shift. It’s going to be messy and there is will be a lot of collateral damage affecting everyone, including the consumer as TV show budgets are likely to be crunched when this comes to a head.
post #56 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That is irrelevant to the average user who doesnt want to learn to do that or go through the effort.
That is irrelevant to the services it offers over streaming sites with no local storage and offline viewing like iTunes Store.
That irrelevant for a fast and convenient download, which can often be done at a coffee shop or airport or hotel before you go on a trip. (this Ive done from iTS and from torrents)

I honestly cant understand how people can be saying that because it isnt ideal for them that it cant possibly be ideal for anyone else. It clearly offers options that the other services dont.

Irrelevant to you perhaps. Handbrake is not 'hard' for anyone who knows how to click a button. You open it, You click Source, you select your DVD, you click the Apple TV in the profile list on the right, and then click Start. Takes all of 20 seconds.

You do realize that Apple TV has no local storage anymore meaning streaming is the only option? That essentially makes iTunes a non-competitor on Apple TV if someone has a Netflix account.

Fast and Convenient Download, if you happen to be at home. Public Wifi leaves something to be desired, and 3G isn't much better than public WiFi for downloading hundreds of MB of video.

<Sarcasm>I honestly cant understand how Solipsism can be saying that because it it's ideal for him, that it must be ideal for anyone else....</Sarcasm>
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #57 of 85
Agreed, with the sarcasm and the statement. In his defense, we do all do a bit of that. In my last rant to poor Solip, I tried to explain my POV at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

<Sarcasm>I honestly can’t understand how Solipsism can be saying that because it it's ideal for him, that it must be ideal for anyone else....</Sarcasm>
post #58 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

$1.99 is too high. I can get South Park and other shows online for Free, even those Short Pixar Films that Apple sells online are available for free in HD on YouTube!
The best solution might be to run short ads like SouthParkStudios does, I don't find them annoying, I see ads as a break to run to the kitchen and reload.

So this guy, by complaining that the $1.99 price point is too high and claiming that he can get shows online for free from YouTube, just proves that these the TV execs. are just as big idiots.

The TV execs. complain that .99¢ devalues their programs but they still allow YouTube, Hulu, etc. to stream away their programming for nothing.

Makes no sense to me.
post #59 of 85
I think the studios wants $.99 plus ads. That is what they are driving at. Kind of like the Hulu plus model.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #60 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesmall View Post

Bewkes elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor.

99 cents is too expensive for something you can get free with your DVR.

Correction. Something you've already bought and paid for with your subscription to Comcast (or another ISP).

Apple is offering content providers extra income from viewers who forgot to set their DVR or discovered the show after it had run. This is a layer of extra income and not competition.

Or will never buy cable. It's like the argument that it will eat into DVD/Blu-Ray sales, the people buying an AppleTV probably don't ever buy DVDs of TV shows, they are additional sales over current numbers.

The reason DVD & Blu-Ray sales are hurting has more to do with the increase in pirated content, and much of the casual pirating might actually be avoided by investing in solutions like what Apple is offering with ATV. Especially if they offer free content with iAd commercials, that would be ideal way to get at some of the people who will go hunting on the web for content.

The world of digital media is changing rapidly & the way to make money from it is changing. These TV execs are fools if they can't understand that their business models have to change & grow to adapt to new technologies & trends. Sadly, if they don't get it now they probably never will. They'll just continue to be bitter that their sales models are failing & they'll blame everyone except themselves for the failures of their business.
post #61 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 cents View Post

You could be my long lost twin. Not only won't I watch commercials, but I can't even be bothered to fast forward them. Repeat: There is nothing so good on tv to make me watch commercials or even be bothered to pick up the remote. Case closed! Well, maybe the world series or some such thing but the way Fox broadcasts it (beyonfpd horrible), I may even extend my rule to it.

Hit the nail SMACK on the head mate,

There is nothing I despise more than paying close to $1200 pre year for digital cable and on top of that being forced to watch commercials ! Beep that.

Cancelled the cable, ordered two Apple TV's and signed up an iTunes account to purchase all of the current things I like though iTunes Season Pass ( Commercial Free ) and got Netflix for under ten bucks a month ( Commercial Free ), my savings after this year is still $900 and next year it will be just about a $1000.

Screw commercials, people need to stand up to all this crap shoved down our throats.
post #62 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You might to rethink your post.

None of it is free. Dont be so myopic to think everyone could stop paying for cable, just get free downloads and the cable/sat would still be able to pay the networks for access to their content and that advertisers would still be willing to pay the same for content that could have the ads easily removed.

Where exactly do you think the profits wil come from? An á la carte service for a rented episode. No! They depend on the bulk payments from cable and sat companies. You can through out all the ifs and buts about people renting x-many shows but that is at the risk of destroying large guaranteed lump payments.

I agree. I just switched for FiOS, and the DVR was $20/month along with ~ $60 in programming fees.

I think that the problem is that Apple is offering a per-episode fee and the studios want a per-season buy. If I get a discount on a season buy (like the discount for a subscription to a magazine, about 50%-60% discount), then perhaps I could imagine a $24/season buy and a $2/episode buy for AppleTV.

Would that make the studios happier?
post #63 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

I think the studios wants $.99 plus ads. That is what they are driving at. Kind of like the Hulu plus model.

That model has been working for them since the dawn of television with their affiliates for over half a century and for decades with cable and sat. It’s no wonder they want to keep it going and they are afraid that a shift will hurt their profit. Despite what some chuckleheads are saying, you pay for your cable or satellite which they pay for to get access to (sometimes by affiliates, who then pay for access), and you still have commercials in your content.

The shit isn’t free. Frankly I’m shocked at how many regular posters here think that it’s okay for these models to exist in such a way and compete with different services until it involves Apple, then they expect Apple to offer the cheapest service with the most options and somehow Apple has the power to control the content owners. It didn’t work for the original AppleTV, which arguable is the reason why it never took off, so why do we expect Apple to have more control over them now.
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 #64 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

I never said these should be the only options, I just think Apple needs to support imports of our EXISTING physical content already. It's been about 6 years since they introduced video to iTunes. And I was also saying that it's not all Apple's issue. The Media Giants want us to constantly re-purchase content. Because they are Greedy. If you could import existing content, then you could take it everywhere, instead of having to re-purchase or "rent" a movie on-the-go or traveling when you already own on DVD/BD but can't rip it to iTunes.

Legally Apple can not do this (at least in the US they can't). Last year Real Networks lost their court case when they were sued for doing just this. And Kaleidoscope won their court case on a contractual technicality only to lose on appeal.

Solipsism is arguing from the Networks point of view. Put yourself in the Networks position. Which would you rather have, large steady payments or a bunch or micro payments? It's not surprising that the Networks prefer the large steady payments.
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #65 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwoloszynski View Post

I agree. I just switched for FiOS, and the DVR was $20/month along with ~ $60 in programming fees.

I think that the problem is that Apple is offering a per-episode fee and the studios want a per-season buy. If I get a discount on a season buy (like the discount for a subscription to a magazine, about 50%-60% discount), then perhaps I could imagine a $24/season buy and a $2/episode buy for AppleTV.

Would that make the studios happier?

Apple is also offering HD that is better than what cable and sat can offer. And is offering the ability to store and play locally on an iDevice without an internet connection and without ads, something Hulu, Netflix, Ruko and other others cant offer.

I think the studios are being overly cautious here, but it is there content and they not only have the right, but the responsibility to their shareholders to protect financial interests.

As I stated before, there is on one-to-one relationship with the content purchases. There cant be! The networks get huge lump sums from those wanting to offer these channels to their customers. Each person who stops paying for cable isnt a fee they dont have to pay to the networks. This is a very, very, very complex situation that will be disastrous for many down the road.
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 #66 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

Legally Apple can not do this (at least in the US they can't). Last year Real Networks lost their court case when they were sued for doing just this. And Kaleidoscope won their court case on a contractual technicality only to lose on appeal.

Solipsism is arguing from the Networks point of view. Put yourself in the Networks position. Which would you rather have, large steady payments or a bunch or micro payments? It's not surprising that the Networks prefer the large steady payments.

Im glad someone is looking at the big picture.
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 #67 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"How can you justify renting your first-run TV shows individually for 99 cents an episode and thereby jeopardize the sale of the same shows as a series to branded networks that pay hundreds of millions of dollars and make those shows available to loyal viewers for free?" Bewkes said.

Which shows available on iTunes are first run and have not been seen or sold to a branded network?
Sounds like he is talking about shows that have been made and not yet bought up by anyone.
post #68 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesmall View Post

Apple is offering content providers extra income from viewers who forgot to set their DVR or discovered the show after it had run. This is a layer of extra income and not competition.

No, people will drop their cable and satelite subscriptions if they can buy the shows they watch ala carte for less. If you are paying $75 a month for cable to watch an average of 10-12 shows a week, you could dump your cable and just pay $40-50 a month, and only for the months where they are delivering new content. Come re-run season you would pay nothing.

Looking at it another way, say you watch 25 different shows in a year with a total of 20 new episodes each (which is a LOT of TV) it would cost you $500 a year. A basic tier package will cost you $50 a month or more which is $600 plus a year. So, even though $1 per show is a lot, you will pay less to the industry if you stop paying for all the crap you don't watch. To make it worse, if you have to pay per show, you will probably watch a lot less than you do now, since you wont be channel surfing when bored.
post #69 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Market_Player View Post

Hit the nail SMACK on the head mate,

There is nothing I despise more than paying close to $1200 pre year for digital cable and on top of that being forced to watch commercials ! Beep that.

Cancelled the cable, ordered two Apple TV's and signed up an iTunes account to purchase all of the current things I like though iTunes Season Pass ( Commercial Free ) and got Netflix for under ten bucks a month ( Commercial Free ), my savings after this year is still $900 and next year it will be just about a $1000.

Screw commercials, people need to stand up to all this crap shoved down our throats.

BINGO. If too many people do this the industry will be in trouble. They will be forced to charge more than $1 or they will have to look for other sources of revenue to pay for all the shows they make, or they will have to make less and or cheaper shows.
post #70 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

BINGO. If too many people do this the industry will be in trouble. They will be forced to charge more than $1 or they will have to look for other sources of revenue to pay for all the shows they make, or they will have to make less and or cheaper shows.

Its pretty amazing how we seem to ignore these things. I remember when Hulu Plus was dropped and it was $10/month and it was ad supported. People actually seemed shocked by such a concept, despite this is what people have been paying for with cable and satellite for decades.
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 #71 of 85
Ordinarily, I would agree with the idea that models that cause erosion can sometimes be highly detrimental to core businesses.

But in this case, his argument makes no sense because the networks themselves put up most shows online for free, the day after broadcast (albeit, sometimes with advertising).

So if the networks put them up for free, why is it detrimental to syndication sales to put them up for 99 cents? Besides, the syndication sales don't even usually start until a show has racked up 100 episodes (about four seasons).

The answer to this is to let Apple put them up for 99 cents, but they can only keep up each episode for a limited time (up to a few months). Most people willing to pay for a TV show generally want to see the show only when it's new anyway, and they're paying the price either because they've missed the broadcast or because they want to view it on a different device.

If he wants to make a valid argument, he could argue that 99 cent online sales kill sales of DVD/Blu-ray compilations, but that could also be partially resolved by the time limit on online sales. Besides, the people willing to pay 99 cents for an episode may well not be willing to pay $35 for a season.
post #72 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

I agree that there are a lot of crap networks out there that I would rather not subscribe to, but I do because it's part of a package.

That being said though, I think what a lot of people don't realize is, if TV went 100% a-la-carte, then once you've watched everything once, how do you find out about new shows? With no commercials, how you find out about new content. For my household, 99% of the new content we find out about is either: 1. Commercials or 2. friends/colleagues. That's how I heard about LOST, a commercial. We hardly ever search for new content via internet. Granted every once in a while i stumble on something. But that's about it. If it went the iTunes model, you'd start hearing crickets coming out of your ATV after a while IMO.

Additionally, without Ads and cable/satv/dish companies, we would have no TV to watch. They play a huge part in the broadcasting of new shows. And I think that's what all the Media Giants are afraid will happen. If that happens where to commercials/previews fit in? We all hate those forced video ads that pop-up and we instantly close them if that option is available, but i digress...

Plus Mr. Pig, I find it surprising that you can't watch a movie more than once? You must have a very short attention span. Granted I don't have a huge library, and I thin it out every once in a while, but I do keep at least 50 of my favorites in the collection at all times. With Netflix, I find myself buying less and less movies, because for the price we pay, I can stand to rent movies a couple times.

How to find out about new shows? Like you, I have found out about good shows from friends/coworkers. I also check websites to see what is new. Solution: The cable companies and/or Apple should host a free "You-Tubish" preview channel, complete with clips from each show/movie. Have Apple make the channel available for free in itunes.

The problem I have with ads? Let's see......I would pay $100.00 a month for a "package" containing hundreds of channels - most of which are crap. Most of the money from my monthly bill would finance junk such as "news" channels, MTV, etc. If I really want news, I would go online. I avoid getting my news from a Media Giant. Why else do you think few people buy newspapers anymore?

Oh, and when I view a 2 hour movie, one third (or more) of that time is devoted to commercials. And the cable/satellite companies turn up the volume on your TV real loud whenever an ad runs. Brilliant. Remember the argument for cable TV when it first came out? "It's wonderful! For a monthly fee, you get all these channels and NO commercials!"

I do not watch a movie more than once. I am able to do it, but I choose not to. I get bored watching re-runs. I do make exceptions to this rule: "Scrooge" and "It's a Wonderful Life" need to be seen every year around Christmastime. Nature documentaries by David Attenborough and the old Wild Kingdom series can also be watched over and over.

Netflix sounds like a good deal. I would want to watch Netflix movies/shows via an internet connection. But the lack of parental controls is keeping me away. There is NO WAY to prevent a child from selecting any single movie or genre of movies. For example, if I do not want my child to watch horror movies, there is no way I, as a parent, can block that out.
post #73 of 85
Greedo.
post #74 of 85
The Networks already got their money out of me and many others twice already. I buy their content on physical media. First I purchased on DVD, now I'm starting to replace some on BD. Why couldn't it be imported to iTunes the same way that I can with Music CD's? That's my point, It doesn't make any sense to me. They got money out of me, sometimes twice or even three times over, in some cases I had VHS as well. That's where my greed comment comes in. I don't see where you're getting steady payments vs. micro payments from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

Legally Apple can not do this (at least in the US they can't). Last year Real Networks lost their court case when they were sued for doing just this. And Kaleidoscope won their court case on a contractual technicality only to lose on appeal.

Solipsism is arguing from the Networks point of view. Put yourself in the Networks position. Which would you rather have, large steady payments or a bunch or micro payments? It's not surprising that the Networks prefer the large steady payments.
post #75 of 85
I do see your POV here, Sucks that Netflix doesn't have parental features. I'm not even sure Apple TV does for that matter. I know iTunes allows blocking certain content, but how that works in conjunction with iTunes is beyond me.

I like your idea of the preview channel. Or they could just place previews in front of rented shows/movies, like DVDs do.

Speaking of additional content. Does anyone know if movies and TV in iTunes and Netflix offer streaming speacial feature disc content, like commentaries, out-takes, interviews like on physical DVD's/BD's? Personally, that's 75% of my decision for purchase. what kinds of special features and Commentary tracks are available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourgoises Pig View Post

How to find out about new shows? Like you, I have found out about good shows from friends/coworkers. I also check websites to see what is new. Solution: The cable companies and/or Apple should host a free "You-Tubish" preview channel, complete with clips from each show/movie. Have Apple make the channel available for free in itunes.

The problem I have with ads? Let's see......I would pay $100.00 a month for a "package" containing hundreds of channels - most of which are crap. Most of the money from my monthly bill would finance junk such as "news" channels, MTV, etc. If I really want news, I would go online. I avoid getting my news from a Media Giant. Why else do you think few people buy newspapers anymore?

Oh, and when I view a 2 hour movie, one third (or more) of that time is devoted to commercials. And the cable/satellite companies turn up the volume on your TV real loud whenever an ad runs. Brilliant. Remember the argument for cable TV when it first came out? "It's wonderful! For a monthly fee, you get all these channels and NO commercials!"

I do not watch a movie more than once. I am able to do it, but I choose not to. I get bored watching re-runs. I do make exceptions to this rule: "Scrooge" and "It's a Wonderful Life" need to be seen every year around Christmastime. Nature documentaries by David Attenborough and the old Wild Kingdom series can also be watched over and over.

Netflix sounds like a good deal. I would want to watch Netflix movies/shows via an internet connection. But the lack of parental controls is keeping me away. There is NO WAY to prevent a child from selecting any single movie or genre of movies. For example, if I do not want my child to watch horror movies, there is no way I, as a parent, can block that out.
post #76 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Its pretty amazing how we seem to ignore these things. I remember when Hulu Plus was dropped and it was $10/month and it was ad supported. People actually seemed shocked by such a concept, despite this is what people have been paying for with cable and satellite for decades.

People don't realize the cost involved in putting together a decent drama show in hopes you can capture an audience for more than a few episodes. Each successful show needs to bring in enough revenue to not only cover its costs, but also the costs of the attempts that failed plus enough profit to make it worth taking the risk. Take away the profit, and they will stop taking risks, and you will end up with a bunch of Jersey Shore shows for your Apple TV. And people will blame the networks for not producing any shows.

Here is a clue, the ATV is worthless without content. The content providers don't need Apple, Apple needs their content, so NBC CBS and Time Warner have a pretty good negotiating possition. Pay them what they want or ATV will fail.
post #77 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

People don't realize the cost involved in putting together a decent drama show in hopes you can capture an audience for more than a few episodes. Each successful show needs to bring in enough revenue to not only cover its costs, but also the costs of the attempts that failed plus enough profit to make it worth taking the risk. Take away the profit, and they will stop taking risks, and you will end up with a bunch of Jersey Shore shows for your Apple TV. And people will blame the networks for not producing any shows.

Here is a clue, the ATV is worthless without content. The content providers don't need Apple, Apple needs their content, so NBC CBS and Time Warner have a pretty good negotiating possition. Pay them what they want or ATV will fail.

How much did it cost to produce one episode of the TV show ER? Was it 45 million? Why so much?

Risks? What risks? Thanks to endless re-runs, even TV shows such as Gilligan's Island continue to make the owners of that show very wealthy. When was that show, in 1967? Was making that show a risk. How many other investors can continue to make money by reselling the same stale product an endless number of times. And today, you do not even need talent nor good looks to be on TV anymore.

Actors (even bad ones) can earn tens of millions of dollars per movie, or they earn just as much by starring in a TV show that lasts a couple of seasons. Why. And then they end up blowing huge chunks of it on drugs while flaunting a bizarre, alternative lifestyle. Please tell me that the people involved in making TV shows and movies actually worked very hard to EARN their money. Does anyone think those people would starve if everyone were to abandon cable for streaming content at $10 a month. Maybe they would be forced to buy crack instead of coke.

ATV is worthless without content. Agreed. There is no law that states that content needs to be made in the USA. Nothing else is made here, so why should TV and movies be the exception. One example of many: Maybe SJ could buy rights to all the Mexican soap operas and dub them in English for itunes. My point is that maybe people would enjoy watching TV shows from other countries (both dubbed and undubbed).
post #78 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

Here is a clue, the ATV is worthless without content. The content providers don't need Apple, Apple needs their content, so NBC CBS and Time Warner have a pretty good negotiating possition. Pay them what they want or ATV will fail.

Yes, the ATV needs content. But it doesn't need network television rental content, which is the issue here. There is plenty of other content and, like many, my interest in ATV is centered on streaming from other iDevices, and the future app store for it.

Bewkes was quite clear, Apple can't just "pay them what they want". They don't want an ala-carte rental, or even a purchase, model. They want a different business model and episode price isn't the issue. I suspect the only way Apple could get all the networks on board is to offer series bundles (hundreds of shows) on a $70+/month subscription basis. In other words, become a cable network, just through iTunes over the internet. And even that might not satisfy them.
post #79 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

The Networks already got their money out of me and many others twice already. I buy their content on physical media. First I purchased on DVD, now I'm starting to replace some on BD. Why couldn't it be imported to iTunes the same way that I can with Music CD's? That's my point, It doesn't make any sense to me. They got money out of me, sometimes twice or even three times over, in some cases I had VHS as well. That's where my greed comment comes in. I don't see where you're getting steady payments vs. micro payments from.

We are talking two separate things here. First, ripping DVDs. Both the Studios and the Labels want to lock down their content. But unfortunately for the Labels, CDs are not locked down nor encrypted. Furthermore Congress passed the Home Audio Recording Act which made it legal for users to rip CDs in order to make backup copies. Learning from this the DVDForum (acting in behalf of the Studios) encrypted their DVDs and got Congress to pass a law (the DMCA) making it illegal to break the DVD encryption. To further their DVD lockdown the DVDForum has kept their DVD License private and confidential.

One of the license provisions is that a licensee can not copy the DVD onto other storage devices. It was this provision that Real Networks broke and was sued for. Kaleidoscope won their original court case due to the confidentiality of the DVD License and the unwillingness of the DVDForum to share it with them before the license purchase. The original judge ruled that the license provisions not shared prior to the purchase was unenforceable. The judge was overruled on appeal.

The point with the large steady payments vrs. the bunch of micro payments has to do with who is paying the networks for their content. Currently the broadcasters, cable companies and satellite companies are paying huge amounts of cash to the networks just for the right to distribute the networks content. Now Apple is coming along with a consignment model where the networks give Apple their content and Apple than sells/rents it to us, the individual consumers, giving a portion of each sell back to the network. Now which do you think the networks would prefer, large payments from the content distributers or portions of small individual sells to the final consumers? Look at the clothing industry, who does better, the factories selling to the department stores or the seamstresses selling from consignment shops?
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #80 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

We are talking two separate things here. First, ripping DVDs. Both the Studios and the Labels want to lock down their content. But unfortunately for the Labels, CDs are not locked down nor encrypted. Furthermore Congress passed the Home Audio Recording Act which made it legal for users to rip CDs in order to make backup copies. Learning from this the DVDForum (acting in behalf of the Studios) encrypted their DVDs and got Congress to pass a law (the DMCA) making it illegal to break the DVD encryption. To further their DVD lockdown the DVDForum has kept their DVD License private and confidential.

One of the license provisions is that a licensee can not copy the DVD onto other storage devices. It was this provision that Real Networks broke and was sued for. Kaleidoscope won their original court case due to the confidentiality of the DVD License and the unwillingness of the DVDForum to share it with them before the license purchase. The original judge ruled that the license provisions not shared prior to the purchase was unenforceable. The judge was overruled on appeal.

The point with the large steady payments vrs. the bunch of micro payments has to do with who is paying the networks for their content. Currently the broadcasters, cable companies and satellite companies are paying huge amounts of cash to the networks just for the right to distribute the networks content. Now Apple is coming along with a consignment model where the networks give Apple their content and Apple than sells/rents it to us, the individual consumers, giving a portion of each sell back to the network. Now which do you think the networks would prefer, large payments from the content distributers or portions of small individual sells to the final consumers? Look at the clothing industry, who does better, the factories selling to the department stores or the seamstresses selling from consignment shops?

I love how you're stating all this stuff as if I didn't already say this an much more simplistic way just a few posts above. Just proves that you and others just don't read the post, you skim them. Then try to insert your own spin on the conversations to make it all sound like these thoughts originated by you.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Time Warner CEO says Apple 99-cent rental model 'jeopardizes' sales