or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › iTunes movies come to Japan, US TV networks blocking Google TV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iTunes movies come to Japan, US TV networks blocking Google TV

post #1 of 73
Thread Starter 
Apple announced Thursday that movies are now available on the iTunes Store in Japan, while the major TV networks in the U.S. have blocked Google TV from playing content from their websites through the Chrome browser.

iTunes Japan

The news of iTunes movies coming to Japan came on the same week that Apple released the new streaming Apple TV in the country. With over 1,000 movies to rent or buy from major international and top Japanese studios, including Asmik Ace Entertainment Inc., Fuji TV, Kadakowa Pictures, Nikkatsu, Shochiku Company Limited and Toei Company Limited, early adopters of the Apple TV in Japan will have plenty of content to watch.

"iTunes HD movie purchases in Japan start at ¥2,000 for catalog titles and recent releases and ¥2,500 for new releases, and SD versions are priced at ¥1,000 for catalog titles, ¥1,500 for recent releases and ¥2,000 for new releases. iTunes HD Movie Rentals start at ¥300 for library title rentals and ¥500 for new releases, and SD versions start at ¥200 for library title rentals and ¥400 for new releases," wrote Apple in the press release.

Apple appears to be increasing its efforts to reach Japan, as it also announced this week that it will partner with The Dentsu Group to launch the iAd service in the country. The first iAds will arrive in early 2011, with Dentsu responsible for selling and creative execution of the ads, while Apple will host, target, and deliver the ads to its users.

According to a recent report from The Wall Street Journal, the Tokyo-based MM Research Institute claims iPhone sales of 1.7 million resulted in Apple commanding a 72 percent share of the Japanese smartphone market for the March 31 fiscal year. Smartphone competition looks to be heating up, however, as Softbank, Japan's sole official distributor for the iPhone, announced last week it will begin carrying 7 new Android smartphones alongside the iPhone.

Google TV

Every major U.S. TV network site has blocked Google TV's Chrome browser, various sources report. Fox recently joined the likes of ABC, CBS, and NBC in refusing to serve up full-length streaming episodes of television shows to Google TV set-top boxes.

Google TV has been billed as a better-featured alternative to Apple TV because it can access the "full internet," but the Android-based platform could lose its competitive edge if the major networks continue to block it from playing their content.



Google has faced resistance from the studios for some time. According to an earlier Reuters report, Google has been "actively negotiating" with the television networks to gain access, but the networks remain wary.

"Everybody knows the lock that Google has on Internet traffic in terms of advertising. If you take that model and you extend it to television, suddenly Google's power becomes enormous in the advertising space and the broadcasters don't like that idea," said Gartner analyst Van Baker.

For its part, Apple is betting on a 99-cent TV show rental model through its redesigned cloud-centric $99 Apple TV. The device forgoes high-capacity storage in favor of streaming content from iOS devices, Macs or PCs, and the internet.
post #2 of 73
Wait, they haven't had video until just NOW?! Utter insanity.

And ~20-25 bucks for HD? Mind: boggled.

Also, first official Apple TV app: Sad Violin for Google TV.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #3 of 73
little bit of "fail" for google tv, how did they really think it would work for free with all that content? Google needs to work much harder than that.
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
post #4 of 73
Well if many of the networks think that Apple's $0.99 model is too cheap, it's really no surprise that they'd have a thing or two against people playing shows on their TV for completely free.
post #5 of 73
So it's no "No soup for you!" for Google TV.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #6 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

So it's no "No soup for you!" for Google TV.

lulz.
post #7 of 73
Reality TV time for Google.
post #8 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Wait, they haven't had video until just NOW?!

Yes, they have had videos. They have not had movies.
post #9 of 73
you mean the TV networks don't want to see Google suck them dry of ads and pay nothing for their content, like it's done to the newspapers? gosh. but isn't Google so cool and hip? like vampires are these days.
post #10 of 73
Movies in Japan! FINALLY!!!

Not the largest selection, yet, but boy have we been waiting for this. All the Star Trek movies are up, so the Trekkie typing this is very happy.

SADLY, some movies, such as Up!, are only available as dubbed versions, which really, really, really, really sucks. Please, Steve, you own a large portion of Disney stock... you could have worked something out...

Still, we had nothing yesterday, so I guess I'm pretty happy overall.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #11 of 73
We'll have to wait to see how it plays out, but it sounds like Google may have just made some powerful enemies in the industry they want to piggyback on for free. This may prove to be a strategic goof of epic proportions. I wonder if Google went to any of them in advance of GoogleTV and explained what they were doing and tried to work out deals?
post #12 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

We'll have to wait to see how it plays out, but it sounds like Google may have just made some powerful enemies in the industry they want to piggyback on for free. This may prove to be a strategic goof of epic proportions. I wonder if Google went to any of them in advance of GoogleTV and explained what they were doing and tried to work out deals?

There is big money in TV distribution deals. I can't imagine the networks agreeing to let Google just leach off them (like they do everywhere else) and suck all the value out of the economics for themselves.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #13 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Movies in Japan! FINALLY!!!

Not the largest selection, yet, but boy
SADLY, some movies, such as Up!, are only available as dubbed versions, which really, really, really, really sucks. Please, Steve, you own a large portion of Disney stock... you could have worked something

UP really sucks in the original English. The plot has so many problems as well as some very controversial social commentary and agenda. Definitely not a children's film.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #14 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

UP really sucks in the original English. The plot has so many problems as well as some very controversial social commentary and agenda. Definitely not a children's film.

Finally, Google has had its hand slapped from the cookie jar....
post #15 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

We'll have to wait to see how it plays out, but it sounds like Google may have just made some powerful enemies in the industry they want to piggyback on for free. This may prove to be a strategic goof of epic proportions. I wonder if Google went to any of them in advance of GoogleTV and explained what they were doing and tried to work out deals?

Why do they need to work out a deal?! They are being accessed using a web browser just like on a computer except that it doesn't need a computer. Are they, the networks, going to start blocking users with large computer monitors from accessing their content?! I find this silly. It is either they allow every device that uses a web browser equal access to their content or they don't allow access at all.
post #16 of 73
Maybe I'm missing something but how is (or was) Google leaching or sucking dry the ad revenue from the networks? I was under the impression that GoogleTV is basically just a web browser; the idea was you go to the networks' own websites (complete with their ads) to watch the content. Eg you navigate to fox.com to watch Fox shows and since it is fox.com, Fox gets the ad revenue. It isn't any different to me going to fox.com in Safari on my iMac.
post #17 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Why do they need to work out a deal?! They are being accessed using a web browser just like on a computer except that it doesn't need a computer. Are they, the networks, going to start blocking users with large computer monitors from accessing their content?! I find this silly. It is either they allow every device that uses a web browser equal access to their content or they don't allow access at all.

Exactly what I was going to say. This same BS happened to Boxee.

Change the user id and they won't know the difference. It's also stupid that Youtube won't let certain videos play on the Wii browser either.

Bunch of utter BS.

Message to studios: This is the new wave of TV watching. Get used to it. Make the ads better, or whatever. This is not going to go away. Be happy some watch you officially rather than using bittorrent. Why not also innovate and release us from the arbitrary limit of time slots while you are at it. I hated stupid editing and bleep outs as well.
post #18 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Why do they need to work out a deal?! They are being accessed using a web browser just like on a computer except that it doesn't need a computer. Are they, the networks, going to start blocking users with large computer monitors from accessing their content?! I find this silly. It is either they allow every device that uses a web browser equal access to their content or they don't allow access at all.

If you are watching a TV Show from the web on TV, then you are not watching the TV show from network/cable. How much does a highly rated primetime TV show generate in review? Millions... Compare that to what networks generate off internet advertising from web distribution. That's laughable. Content available on the web is offered under the premise that it's not cannibalizing audience when it airs on TV.

In addition, people might cut back on their cable packages for channels they subscribe to. Comcast et al lose out on distribution fees. That would lead to metered broadband at higher prices. Google's approach could destroy the economics of the TV industry dramatically decreasing the available content. Just look at how many newspapers and magazines have evaporated. I think Apple's proposition represents a fair middle ground.
post #19 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

UP really sucks in the original English. The plot has so many problems as well as some very controversial social commentary and agenda. Definitely not a children's film.

Looks like someone forgot to take their meds today...
post #20 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turley Muller View Post

If you are watching a TV Show from the web on TV, then you are not watching the TV show from network/cable. How much does a highly rated primetime TV show generate in review? Millions... Compare that to what networks generate off internet advertising from web distribution. That's laughable. Content available on the web is offered under the premise that it's not cannibalizing audience when it airs on TV.

In addition, people might cut back on their cable packages for channels they subscribe to. Comcast et al lose out on distribution fees. That would lead to metered broadband at higher prices. Google's approach could destroy the economics of the TV industry dramatically decreasing the available content. Just look at how many newspapers and magazines have evaporated. I think Apple's proposition represents a fair middle ground.

Tough sh for them. Not our problem. Already been reported 500k cable subscribers were lost and did not show up on sat or anything else.
post #21 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turley Muller View Post

If you are watching a TV Show from the web on TV, then you are not watching the TV show from network/cable. How much does a highly rated primetime TV show generate in review? Millions... Compare that to what networks generate off internet advertising from web distribution. That's laughable. Content available on the web is offered under the premise that it's not cannibalizing audience when it airs on TV.

Then why do networks provide TV on their websites if they don't want people to watch it?
post #22 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

Maybe I'm missing something but how is (or was) Google leaching or sucking dry the ad revenue from the networks? I was under the impression that GoogleTV is basically just a web browser; the idea was you go to the networks' own websites (complete with their ads) to watch the content. Eg you navigate to fox.com to watch Fox shows and since it is fox.com, Fox gets the ad revenue. It isn't any different to me going to fox.com in Safari on my iMac.

Yeah but the CPM's on broadcast TV are so much higher than web CPMs. Live broadcast ad inventory is fixed- 24 hours in a day / x amount of networks. Advertisers bid up for those time slots. Think Super Bowl ads. On-demand content is better monetized though pay per view model. Ad monetization is better suited for live broadcast content whereby a large audience can only be reached at that specific time, at that specific place, forcing advertisers to pay up to reach those consumers.
post #23 of 73
Laptop+HDMI cable+TV > Google TV
post #24 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

UP really sucks in the original English. The plot has so many problems as well as some very controversial social commentary and agenda. Definitely not a children's film.

I thought it was clear that my point was that some movies, the one I cited (because I believed that people at least knew of it) was from Disney, are not available in Japan in their original audio format and that I would be happier if they were.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #25 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turley Muller View Post

If you are watching a TV Show from the web on TV, then you are not watching the TV show from network/cable. How much does a highly rated primetime TV show generate in review? Millions... Compare that to what networks generate off internet advertising from web distribution. That's laughable. Content available on the web is offered under the premise that it's not cannibalizing audience when it airs on TV.

In addition, people might cut back on their cable packages for channels they subscribe to. Comcast et al lose out on distribution fees. That would lead to metered broadband at higher prices. Google's approach could destroy the economics of the TV industry dramatically decreasing the available content. Just look at how many newspapers and magazines have evaporated. I think Apple's proposition represents a fair middle ground.

Like I said. If they are worried about people watching their TV shows on the web instead on cable then they shouldn't put them on the web to begin with. What if those TVs were equipped with Windows OS and IE instead of Android. Are they going to block Windows IE from access their website as well?!
post #26 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turley Muller View Post

Yeah but the CPM's on broadcast TV are so much higher than web CPMs. Live broadcast ad inventory is fixed- 24 hours in a day / x amount of networks. Advertisers bid up for those time slots. Think Super Bowl ads. On-demand content is better monetized though pay per view model. Ad monetization is better suited for live broadcast content whereby a large audience can only be reached at that specific time, at that specific place, forcing advertisers to pay up to reach those consumers.

Then maybe the websites should switch to pay per view.

I don't think this is really about GoogleTV; this is about TV in a web browser. I think AppleTV will eventually include Safari and let you browse the web (my guess is within the next 12 months) and unless these issues are resolved we will see this problem repeated.


ps - I'm not convinced that on-demand is not suitable for ad based models. People might not watch the advert simultaneously, but the same number of people should still watch it.
post #27 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Tough sh for them. Not our problem.

Except that the shows we want to watch can't be made without that revenue stream.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #28 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by macnyc View Post

Looks like someone forgot to take their meds today...

I second that one mate, heck I would even create another account here to third it LOL

I thought Up was a fun movie.
post #29 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

Change the user id and they won't know the difference.

They got wise to that one. These days they use the Flash version ID instead of the browser's user agent strings.
post #30 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

Then maybe the websites should switch to pay per view.

I don't think this is really about GoogleTV; this is about TV in a web browser. I think AppleTV will eventually include Safari and let you browse the web (my guess is within the next 12 months) and unless these issues are resolved we will see this problem repeated.


ps - I'm not convinced that on-demand is not suitable for ad based models. People might not watch the advert simultaneously, but the same number of people should still watch it.

I agree. It's hard to know exactly what he best approach is, thus I think stakeholders are being careful not to allow brash move that destroys the entire industry.

True, the same number of people should still watch on-demand, but advertisers don't have to pay more to have their voice heard over competitors. If TV has 50 channels, 20 minutes ads/hr. then 1000 minute spots that everyone fights over. However, if there are 1000 TV shows available on demand, each represents a channel in a broadcast sense allowing for 20K minute ad spots. Obviously that would devalue ad revenue. To max ad revenues, networks have to hold their audience captive, forcing them to watch by eliminating alternatives and choice for viewers. However, it's impossible to hold everyone captive, as people have many things to do that take precedence over watching a show. Therefore, revenue is left on the table since a single time/place isn't convenient for everyone. That's where making content available on the web comes in. People can watch on mobile devices or PCs when they can't be home to watch on TV and/or miss episodes. Ad revenue is much much less, but those viewers wouldn't have watched the TV broadcast anyway.

Media companies are trying to have it both ways. But one could kill the other, and the one left could be the one that doesn't bring in the revenue.

I am not enthused about having a browser on my TV. Now, seeing a browser displayed is different. Browse on iPhone/iPad then beam it up to the TV. I think navigating through an UI based on the TV is less appealing to doing all the nav on a handheld device then viewing on the TV. That's why I hope AirPlay is expanded across all aspects of iOS. And that would be very hard for studios to block since it's essentially plugging a VGA/HDMI cable into a TV, except wirelessly.
post #31 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turley Muller View Post

I am not enthused about having a browser on my TV. Now, seeing a browser displayed is different. Browse on iPhone/iPad then beam it up to the TV. I think navigating through an UI based on the TV is less appealing to doing all the nav on a handheld device then viewing on the TV. That's why I hope AirPlay is expanded across all aspects of iOS. And that would be very hard for studios to block since it's essentially plugging a VGA/HDMI cable into a TV, except wirelessly.

The lack of Flash is currently preventing iOS devices from displaying these websites, but if that was ever fixed (maybe switching to html5) the networks would probably block iOS devices just like they are trying to block everything else.

Hulu is free on the web. But on iOS devices you have to pay $10 a month.
post #32 of 73
All I can say is.... Muaha ahah hahahha ahaha hah ha

I'm going to f**ing bleed you studios dry with torrents.

Some of you don't even want to rent me an episode for a miserable 99c.

F*** YOU and your BOLLOCKS DINOSAUR distribution arrangements.

Enjoy the view on your Titanic.
post #33 of 73
post #34 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

you mean the TV networks don't want to see Google suck them dry of ads and pay nothing for their content, like it's done to the newspapers? gosh. but isn't Google so cool and hip? like vampires are these days.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Turley Muller View Post

If you are watching a TV Show from the web on TV, then you are not watching the TV show from network/cable. How much does a highly rated primetime TV show generate in review? Millions... Compare that to what networks generate off internet advertising from web distribution. That's laughable. Content available on the web is offered under the premise that it's not cannibalizing audience when it airs on TV.

In addition, people might cut back on their cable packages for channels they subscribe to. Comcast et al lose out on distribution fees. That would lead to metered broadband at higher prices. Google's approach could destroy the economics of the TV industry dramatically decreasing the available content. Just look at how many newspapers and magazines have evaporated. I think Apple's proposition represents a fair middle ground.

Google didn't destroy the newspaper and magazine business, change did. Tell me why on iPad Zinio is still just offering subscriptions at super low prices but not individual issues at decent prices? As for newspapers... *sigh* I don't even know where to begin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

Except that the shows we want to watch can't be made without that revenue stream.

They have to figure out a new revenue stream then. Ads, fine. Or 99c rentals without ads. International distribution like almost all Mac, PC, PS3 and XBOX360 content.

One day I'll face the karma for whatever torrenting I've done (I do purchase and rent TV shows and movies as well from time to time, but doing so in USD equivalent is not cheap for me and multiples of my cable bill which is shared by the family).

But for now, just like the music industry (I generally purchase a song if I like it, most recently I've just been downloading podcasts and supporting the DJs when they come to my city)... Just like the music industry tv and movies have got to do some rethinking.

Sure, you have to deal with "Lord Jobs" but you're about to go over a waterfall, Apple's stick is the only one near you.
post #35 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turley Muller View Post

And that would be very hard for studios to block since it's essentially plugging a VGA/HDMI cable into a TV, except wirelessly.

Think again. Most iTunes TV and Movie HD content is now HDCP DRM'ed. Even if I LEGITIMATELY PUT UP THE HARD EARNED CASH FOR THE DARN HD shows I CANNOT WATCH IT from my Mac/ iPad/ iPhone to my TV OR 21" COMPUTER SCREEN over VGA or EVEN DVI.

If this doesn't say something is seriously screwed up with the TV and movie industry, I really don't know what does.
post #36 of 73
As long as these Hollywood movies come with Japanese subtitles I'll be really happy. I have a large collection of Japanese releases which I use to improve my Japanese reading ability. This would really speed things up for me. iTunes would get a lot of my money and I would even buy a nextGen iPad or AppleTV so I'm not just stuck with watching movies on a tiny iPhone.
post #37 of 73
Switzerland also finally got movies in the iTunes store. Still, they totally screwed this up - the prices are exorbitant and all the content is dubbed. This is insanity. I know nobody who would pay a single cent for dubbed movies. Come on Apple, we're not legally retarded here, give us the films as they were meant to be seen. Oh, also: no TV series as of now. FAIL. Seriously, I WANT to pay for good content and I DON'T WANT to use torrents, so why does everyone make it so damn hard?
post #38 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

Switzerland also finally got movies in the iTunes store. Still, they totally screwed this up - the prices are exorbitant and all the content is dubbed. This is insanity. I know nobody who would pay a single cent for dubbed movies. Come on Apple, we're not legally retarded here, give us the films as they were meant to be seen. Oh, also: no TV series as of now. FAIL. Seriously, I WANT to pay for good content and I DON'T WANT to use torrents, so why does everyone make it so damn hard?

I also would love to have not dubbed content. But on the other hand many people will love dubbed movies.
Apple is aiming for the living room after all, not just the "geek" living room, both in terms of prices of the ATV as well as in terms of selection. So I find it reasonable as a strategy, for now. Maybe not dubbed content will come in the future (I expect it to be the case).

Did anyone notice that, with the opening of the server center in the US, Apple is making more and more content available?

Regarding the dubbed question...

I think part of the choice is also due to the studios in hollywood... I think licensing problems are preventing movies to be released in original language, to limit piracy (at least that is what I think happened here).
If movies are successfull, then Apple will expand selection.

You say movies are pricey. I don't think so. Renting a movie for 2 people costs less than drinking a coke...
post #39 of 73
So but what are the movies dubbed to? French, German or Italian?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur View Post

Switzerland also finally got movies in the iTunes store. Still, they totally screwed this up - the prices are exorbitant and all the content is dubbed. This is insanity. I know nobody who would pay a single cent for dubbed movies. Come on Apple, we're not legally retarded here, give us the films as they were meant to be seen. Oh, also: no TV series as of now. FAIL. Seriously, I WANT to pay for good content and I DON'T WANT to use torrents, so why does everyone make it so damn hard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinolo View Post

I also would love to have not dubbed content. But on the other hand many people will love dubbed movies.
Apple is aiming for the living room after all, not just the "geek" living room, both in terms of prices of the ATV as well as in terms of selection. So I find it reasonable as a strategy, for now. Maybe not dubbed content will come in the future (I expect it to be the case).

Did anyone notice that, with the opening of the server center in the US, Apple is making more and more content available?

Regarding the dubbed question...

I think part of the choice is also due to the studios in hollywood... I think licensing problems are preventing movies to be released in original language, to limit piracy (at least that is what I think happened here).
If movies are successfull, then Apple will expand selection.

You say movies are pricey. I don't think so. Renting a movie for 2 people costs less than drinking a coke...
post #40 of 73
French, German and Italian versions are all available in Switzerland. Just not the originals.

Also, I don't think the Swiss living room thrives on dubbed movies. Most cinemas here show original versions with German and French subtitles, and I don't know anyone who would ever watch a dubbed version of a movie.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › iTunes movies come to Japan, US TV networks blocking Google TV