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

Originally Posted by yensid98

These guys have their heads in the sand. Do they really get more than $0.99 for each viewer that watches every show on TV? I seriously doubt that. They will make more money renting shows in the long run.

The old model is dying. Dead already in my mind as I don't watch TV at all. All my show watching is done through Netflix streaming, Netfilx DVD rentals and soon to be TV rentals through iTunes. If I can't see a show in one of those ways, then I just don't see it. I WILL NOT watch commercials or pay exorbitant cable fees. Those days are long gone.

Originally Posted by solipsism

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!

Originally Posted by DJRumpy

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.

Originally Posted by solipsism

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.

Originally Posted by solipsism

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.

Originally Posted by antkm1

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.

Originally Posted by Povilas

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.

Originally Posted by johnfrombeyond

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...

Originally Posted by solipsism

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.

Originally Posted by solipsism

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?

Originally Posted by solipsism

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?

Originally Posted by solipsism

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.

Originally Posted by antkm1

Lucky you!

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bourgoises Pig

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.

Originally Posted by solipsism

It’s not luck when you plan well.

Originally Posted by solipsism

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

Originally Posted by solipsism

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.

Originally Posted by solipsism

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.

Originally Posted by solipsism

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.

Originally Posted by DJRumpy

<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>

Originally Posted by bloggerblog

$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.

Originally Posted by davesmall

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.

Originally Posted by 2 cents

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.

Originally Posted by solipsism

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.

Originally Posted by sheff

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

Originally Posted by antkm1

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.

Originally Posted by cwoloszynski

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?

Originally Posted by aresee

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.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"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.

Originally Posted by davesmall

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.

Originally Posted by Market_Player

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.

Originally Posted by AIaddict

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.

Originally Posted by antkm1

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.

Originally Posted by aresee

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.

Originally Posted by Bourgoises Pig

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.

Originally Posted by solipsism

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.

Originally Posted by AIaddict

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.

Originally Posted by AIaddict

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.

Originally Posted by antkm1

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.