Really. Who would want to clog up valuable HD space with this crap anyway?
Rental works better IMO
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Does Apple take a set fee for a video length at a particular quality?<snip> I have to wonder if perhaps 1/4 (49¢) or 1/3 (69¢) pricing model might be more realistic.
How about a charged rental model with embedded ads might be required in order to go so low. The rebuttal for that argument is that Hulu has ads but it's free, but Hulu also doesn't necessarily have new shows the next day, has limited cable shows, has no paid cable channel shows, has a low bit rate to their low resolution video and isn't transferable to iDevices, at least not yet).
Whether or not Apple takes a fee for bandwidth costs - there ARE bandwidth costs to account for.
As for the show - my calculations a few years back were that an ABC station makes about 40c/viewer on the ads it shows during Lost. ABC network probably makes half of that... (but it'd be really good to figure out what the real figures are).
This has 2 consequences
1) assuming the average show has 2 viewers, we're probably looking at less than 80c per rental for the network to make the same money. (But perhaps they need to also support the local ABC channel?)
2) If Apple was to put in 18minutes of ads, EXACTLY like a TV station, and shown on your home TV - then they could earn about 40c/viewer. A $1 show is almost paid for anyway.
Personally I think that instead of 18minutes of Boston advertising aimed at the average "Lost" viewer, if the AppleTV showed 1/4 of the ads customised specifically to me (and even with ads for shops/services in my suburb) then that would be worth the same. But I could be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
There's nothing stopping Apple implementing peer-to-peer technology in iTunes to help reduce serving costs.
That's a good idea. Use it to SUPPLEMENT the main Apple servers, even if it only halves Apple's bandwidth requirements it'll be a success. We already know that an Apple TV file is mostly identical for every user - so just share that piece and get the final authorisation from Apple. If they add P4P technology then sharing will happen between nearby users, reducing ISP bandwidth costs too.
edit: With Content Distribution Networks now, I really don't know how much bandwidth costs. I'm actually surprised Apple hasn't bought a CDN (or made its own)
RAs for the show - my calculations a few years back were that an ABC station makes about 40c/viewer on the ads it shows during Lost. ABC network probably makes half of that... (but it'd be really good to figure out what the real figures are).
This has 2 consequences
1) assuming the average show has 2 viewers, we're probably looking at less than 80c per rental for the network to make the same money. (But perhaps they need to also support the local ABC channel?)
2) If Apple was to put in 18minutes of ads, EXACTLY like a TV station, and shown on your home TV - then they could earn about 40c/viewer. A $1 show is almost paid for anyway.
Personally I think that instead of 18minutes of Boston advertising aimed at the average "Lost" viewer, if the AppleTV showed 1/4 of the ads customised specifically to me (and even with ads for shops/services in my suburb) then that would be worth the same. But I could be wrong.
The local networks are something else we often forget. The more viewers they lose to the internet the less the stations will make yet their costs aren't going down. This could get really bad for cable stations that don't want to pay as much for pay cable if they are losing customers to internet renting methods.
The other interesting thing you brought up was tailored adverts. Google does that for searches, it would be interesting to have a show separated into segments and ads pulled and dynamically stitched in when you rent it, just before being uploaded to your machine. Actually, that sounds like something profitable worth patenting.
Some of us would rather pay a little for higher quality, or content without advertisements.
Ideally we should be able to choose which we'd rather do.
* Buy for $2 (HD)
* Rent for 80c
* watch 18 minutes of ads which we can fast forward over (like a PVR today)
* watch 5 minutes of ads customised just to us
* pay 40c to watch half as many ads.
The other side-effect of ads is that we can start watching immediately - it can show a preloaded ad while it starts to load the TV show. Also it'll work on slightly slower internet connections if it intersperses preloaded ads.
New technology ALLOWS us to have options in how we watch, where OTA broadcast pretty well had to make one size fit all.
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu can't be played on cellphones
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu can't be played offline
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu doesn't necessarily have shows the next day
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu doesn't have any paid-cable shows
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu uses a very low bit rate compared to iTunes
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu has ads, iTunes doesn't.
I watch many shows via Hulu but that doesn't mean I can't see the benefit of other options.
I pay for cable and TiVo the shows I want. I absolutely love Tivo and it's completely changed the way I watch TV.
I was actually wondering who pays for network TV shows on iTunes. The above are some interesting reasons. I have no interest at all in ever watching Lost on a dinky screen, but I can see someone wanting the mobility. Tivo trumps the other reasons. Of course it depends on how many shows you watch, but it's far cheaper for me to pay for Cable+Tivo than individual shows for $1.
I have built an HTPC, so I should really check out Netflix.
NCIS/Criminal Minds/Mentalist and I'm in like Flint
I think Red John is the CBI boss, Virgil Minelli, played by Gregory Itzin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by os2baba
I pay for cable and TiVo the shows I want. I absolutely love Tivo and it's completely changed the way I watch TV.
I was actually wondering who pays for network TV shows on iTunes. The above are some interesting reasons. I have no interest at all in ever watching Lost on a dinky screen, but I can see someone wanting the mobility. Tivo trumps the other reasons. Of course it depends on how many shows you watch, but it's far cheaper for me to pay for Cable+Tivo than individual shows for $1.
I have built an HTPC, so I should really check out Netflix.
They are all great. They all have pros and cons, but I buy a lot of iTunes Store videos because of the convenience since I'm always traveling. I use Hulu when I can, but it won't work for everything as detailed above. I used to have Netflix streaming but it was taxing on my system and I didn't care for the player or quality, but if you are wanting to watch every show of an older series it's the way to go.
I think that $1 per episode is not good enough for me. I just got Fringe season 1 in Best Buy for $9.99. That's 20 episodes, so it is like 50 cents per episode. TV shows are for watching once. I still don't think that paying $1, much less $2, for a TV show is worth it, especially when you can find such great deals on DVD.
Renting TV shows would be better, that brings another question, how much can you charge for it? I think that 29 cents per episode is the best for old seasons and 49 cents for just released shows.
But after all, a subscription plan for unlimited downloads would work the best. Maybe $9-$10 a month with limited commercial and a premium $30 without commercials, with an "own it" option for 49 cent in SD or 99 cents in HD.
I think that $1 per episode is not good enough for me. I just got Fringe season 1 in Best Buy for $9.99. That's 20 episodes, so it is like 50 cents per episode. TV shows are for watching once. I still don't think that paying $1, much less $2, for a TV show is worth it, especially when you can find such great deals on DVD.
Renting TV shows would be better, that brings another question, how much can you charge for it? I think that 29 cents per episode is the best for old seasons and 49 cents for just released shows.
But after all, a subscription plan for unlimited downloads would work the best. Maybe $9-$10 a month with limited commercial and a premium $30 without commercials, with an "own it" option for 49 cent in SD or 99 cents in HD.
This is good, but not good enough. I watch maybe 3 shows on a regular basis, and if I could get internet delivery, I'd watch another 3 or 4. If these are 4 times a week, 4 weeks a month, that's $16 a month for each show, or maybe as much as $100 a month. My cable bill is only about $45 a month.
If they bring in the "all you can eat" subscription that's been bandied about, then I'm in.
Renting TV shows would be better, that brings another question, how much can you charge for it? I think that 29 cents per episode is the best for old seasons and 49 cents for just released shows.
But after all, a subscription plan for unlimited downloads would work the best. Maybe $9-$10 a month with limited commercial and a premium $30 without commercials, with an "own it" option for 49 cent in SD or 99 cents in HD.
I don't see how Apple could lower ALL TV Shows to $0.99. They are very conscious of the way media is valued, and how would it look if HD TV Shows, some of which are 44 minutes in length, cost less than a new Taylor Swift single at $1.29 for 3 mins and 256kbps?
Something seems a bit skewed there.
Maybe some unity across the store would remove some of the price-by-value perception.
ie:
New TV Show Episodes: $1.29 (HD or SD) for the first 24 hours after release.
Post-24 hours and Library Titles: $0.69 - $0.99 (HD or SD)
This way it makes a little more sense. Episodes from the 2nd season of Wings can be $0.69, while John Stewart's recent broadcast will float in at $1.29, and become $0.99 the next day.
Sounds like a good way to get a couple extra cents out of the person who wants to see the episode they missed immediately. Everyone else can be patient and save $.30.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luiso
But after all, a subscription plan for unlimited downloads would work the best. Maybe $9-$10 a month with limited commercial and a premium $30 without commercials, with an "own it" option for 49 cent in SD or 99 cents in HD.
Now this is probably the most brilliant idea yet. Rentals for TV Shows are the way to go, just like it was for movies. The same logic SJ used in that keynote applies here. Your pricing is right on too.
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu can't be played on cellphones
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu can't be played offline
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu doesn't necessarily have shows the next day
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu doesn't have any paid-cable shows
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu uses a very low bit rate compared to iTunes
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu has ads, iTunes doesn't.
I watch many shows via Hulu but that doesn't mean I can't see the benefit of other options.
Best. Ever.
Seriously .99 is the sweet spot. This will increase sales of shows for sure, and not to mention will help other media, like music videos, drop in price too. Win for us!
The thing that surprises me is that this rumour is not about whole seasons.
ie: I expected something more like $2/episode, but only $18 for all 20 episodes
This would really encourage season purchases!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz
This is good, but not good enough. I watch maybe 3 shows on a regular basis, and if I could get internet delivery, I'd watch another 3 or 4. If these are 4 times a week, 4 weeks a month, that's $16 a month for each show, or maybe as much as $100 a month. My cable bill is only about $45 a month.
Just out of interest - since all shows run less than half the year - are you saying you'd watch 8 shows over the entire year? or in any given week there'd be 8 shows you're regularly watching, even in the non-ratings period?
It's an important difference, as it changes $100 a month to less than $42/mth.
Comments
It's been 20 years since any US broadcast network had a show that was worth $1.
Really. Who would want to clog up valuable HD space with this crap anyway?
Really. Who would want to clog up valuable HD space with this crap anyway?
Rental works better IMO
Does Apple take a set fee for a video length at a particular quality?<snip> I have to wonder if perhaps 1/4 (49¢) or 1/3 (69¢) pricing model might be more realistic.
How about a charged rental model with embedded ads might be required in order to go so low. The rebuttal for that argument is that Hulu has ads but it's free, but Hulu also doesn't necessarily have new shows the next day, has limited cable shows, has no paid cable channel shows, has a low bit rate to their low resolution video and isn't transferable to iDevices, at least not yet).
Whether or not Apple takes a fee for bandwidth costs - there ARE bandwidth costs to account for.
As for the show - my calculations a few years back were that an ABC station makes about 40c/viewer on the ads it shows during Lost. ABC network probably makes half of that... (but it'd be really good to figure out what the real figures are).
This has 2 consequences
1) assuming the average show has 2 viewers, we're probably looking at less than 80c per rental for the network to make the same money. (But perhaps they need to also support the local ABC channel?)
2) If Apple was to put in 18minutes of ads, EXACTLY like a TV station, and shown on your home TV - then they could earn about 40c/viewer. A $1 show is almost paid for anyway.
Personally I think that instead of 18minutes of Boston advertising aimed at the average "Lost" viewer, if the AppleTV showed 1/4 of the ads customised specifically to me (and even with ads for shops/services in my suburb) then that would be worth the same. But I could be wrong.
There's nothing stopping Apple implementing peer-to-peer technology in iTunes to help reduce serving costs.
That's a good idea. Use it to SUPPLEMENT the main Apple servers, even if it only halves Apple's bandwidth requirements it'll be a success. We already know that an Apple TV file is mostly identical for every user - so just share that piece and get the final authorisation from Apple. If they add P4P technology then sharing will happen between nearby users, reducing ISP bandwidth costs too.
edit: With Content Distribution Networks now, I really don't know how much bandwidth costs. I'm actually surprised Apple hasn't bought a CDN (or made its own)
RAs for the show - my calculations a few years back were that an ABC station makes about 40c/viewer on the ads it shows during Lost. ABC network probably makes half of that... (but it'd be really good to figure out what the real figures are).
This has 2 consequences
1) assuming the average show has 2 viewers, we're probably looking at less than 80c per rental for the network to make the same money. (But perhaps they need to also support the local ABC channel?)
2) If Apple was to put in 18minutes of ads, EXACTLY like a TV station, and shown on your home TV - then they could earn about 40c/viewer. A $1 show is almost paid for anyway.
Personally I think that instead of 18minutes of Boston advertising aimed at the average "Lost" viewer, if the AppleTV showed 1/4 of the ads customised specifically to me (and even with ads for shops/services in my suburb) then that would be worth the same. But I could be wrong.
The local networks are something else we often forget. The more viewers they lose to the internet the less the stations will make yet their costs aren't going down. This could get really bad for cable stations that don't want to pay as much for pay cable if they are losing customers to internet renting methods.
The other interesting thing you brought up was tailored adverts. Google does that for searches, it would be interesting to have a show separated into segments and ads pulled and dynamically stitched in when you rent it, just before being uploaded to your machine. Actually, that sounds like something profitable worth patenting.
The Internet is the new OTA (Over the Air)... eventually I think broadcast will mostly go away and it will all be bi-directional...
Wow, such a deal, considering episodes on Hulu are FREE.
— Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu can't be played on cellphones
— Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu can't be played offline
— Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu doesn't necessarily have shows the next day
— Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu doesn't have any paid-cable shows
— Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu uses a very low bit rate compared to iTunes
— Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu has ads, iTunes doesn't.
I watch many shows via Hulu but that doesn't mean I can't see the benefit of other options.
There's nothing stopping Apple implementing peer-to-peer technology in iTunes to help reduce serving costs.
Distribution/IT cost has nothing to do with it. The cost issue is all about content licensing.
Wow, such a deal, considering episodes on Hulu are FREE.
The Internet is the new OTA (Over the Air)... eventually I think broadcast will mostly go away and it will all be bi-directional...
For cheap people, maybe. Some of us would rather pay a little for higher quality, or content without advertisements.
Some of us would rather pay a little for higher quality, or content without advertisements.
Ideally we should be able to choose which we'd rather do.
* Buy for $2 (HD)
* Rent for 80c
* watch 18 minutes of ads which we can fast forward over (like a PVR today)
* watch 5 minutes of ads customised just to us
* pay 40c to watch half as many ads.
The other side-effect of ads is that we can start watching immediately - it can show a preloaded ad while it starts to load the TV show. Also it'll work on slightly slower internet connections if it intersperses preloaded ads.
New technology ALLOWS us to have options in how we watch, where OTA broadcast pretty well had to make one size fit all.
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu can't be played on cellphones
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu can't be played offline
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu doesn't necessarily have shows the next day
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu doesn't have any paid-cable shows
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu uses a very low bit rate compared to iTunes
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu has ads, iTunes doesn't.
I watch many shows via Hulu but that doesn't mean I can't see the benefit of other options.
I pay for cable and TiVo the shows I want. I absolutely love Tivo and it's completely changed the way I watch TV.
I was actually wondering who pays for network TV shows on iTunes. The above are some interesting reasons. I have no interest at all in ever watching Lost on a dinky screen, but I can see someone wanting the mobility. Tivo trumps the other reasons. Of course it depends on how many shows you watch, but it's far cheaper for me to pay for Cable+Tivo than individual shows for $1.
I have built an HTPC, so I should really check out Netflix.
NCIS/Criminal Minds/Mentalist and I'm in like Flint
I think Red John is the CBI boss, Virgil Minelli, played by Gregory Itzin.
I pay for cable and TiVo the shows I want. I absolutely love Tivo and it's completely changed the way I watch TV.
I was actually wondering who pays for network TV shows on iTunes. The above are some interesting reasons. I have no interest at all in ever watching Lost on a dinky screen, but I can see someone wanting the mobility. Tivo trumps the other reasons. Of course it depends on how many shows you watch, but it's far cheaper for me to pay for Cable+Tivo than individual shows for $1.
I have built an HTPC, so I should really check out Netflix.
They are all great. They all have pros and cons, but I buy a lot of iTunes Store videos because of the convenience since I'm always traveling. I use Hulu when I can, but it won't work for everything as detailed above. I used to have Netflix streaming but it was taxing on my system and I didn't care for the player or quality, but if you are wanting to watch every show of an older series it's the way to go.
It's been 20 years since any US broadcast network had a show that was worth $1.
Can't help myself. To quote a cult film, Robocop.
I'd buy that for a dollar
only I'm in Australia, so it won't be a dollar. Ah well.
99¢ isn't bad to own, but I would like to see a even lower rent price.
Right now I can watch tons of shows all day, all month long, for only $8-9 a month via Netflix.
To beat Netflix, each TV rental will have to be less than 3¢ each and commercial free.
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu can't be played on cellphones
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu can't be played offline
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu doesn't necessarily have shows the next day
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu doesn't have any paid-cable shows
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu uses a very low bit rate compared to iTunes
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu has ads, iTunes doesn't.
I watch many shows via Hulu but that doesn't mean I can't see the benefit of other options.
Can't help myself. To quote a cult film, Robocop.
I'd buy that for a dollar
only I'm in Australia, so it won't be a dollar. Ah well.
i watch free net flix tv shows
free hulu shows
free abc/scfy/cbs/nbc shows
itunes seems old hat
except when i watched every battlestar galactica ever made in HD
wow
and over time storing all these watched shows sucks
Renting TV shows would be better, that brings another question, how much can you charge for it? I think that 29 cents per episode is the best for old seasons and 49 cents for just released shows.
But after all, a subscription plan for unlimited downloads would work the best. Maybe $9-$10 a month with limited commercial and a premium $30 without commercials, with an "own it" option for 49 cent in SD or 99 cents in HD.
I think that $1 per episode is not good enough for me. I just got Fringe season 1 in Best Buy for $9.99. That's 20 episodes, so it is like 50 cents per episode. TV shows are for watching once. I still don't think that paying $1, much less $2, for a TV show is worth it, especially when you can find such great deals on DVD.
Renting TV shows would be better, that brings another question, how much can you charge for it? I think that 29 cents per episode is the best for old seasons and 49 cents for just released shows.
But after all, a subscription plan for unlimited downloads would work the best. Maybe $9-$10 a month with limited commercial and a premium $30 without commercials, with an "own it" option for 49 cent in SD or 99 cents in HD.
nice
If they bring in the "all you can eat" subscription that's been bandied about, then I'm in.
Renting TV shows would be better, that brings another question, how much can you charge for it? I think that 29 cents per episode is the best for old seasons and 49 cents for just released shows.
But after all, a subscription plan for unlimited downloads would work the best. Maybe $9-$10 a month with limited commercial and a premium $30 without commercials, with an "own it" option for 49 cent in SD or 99 cents in HD.
Bingo.
Something seems a bit skewed there.
Maybe some unity across the store would remove some of the price-by-value perception.
ie:
New TV Show Episodes: $1.29 (HD or SD) for the first 24 hours after release.
Post-24 hours and Library Titles: $0.69 - $0.99 (HD or SD)
This way it makes a little more sense. Episodes from the 2nd season of Wings can be $0.69, while John Stewart's recent broadcast will float in at $1.29, and become $0.99 the next day.
Sounds like a good way to get a couple extra cents out of the person who wants to see the episode they missed immediately. Everyone else can be patient and save $.30.
But after all, a subscription plan for unlimited downloads would work the best. Maybe $9-$10 a month with limited commercial and a premium $30 without commercials, with an "own it" option for 49 cent in SD or 99 cents in HD.
Now this is probably the most brilliant idea yet. Rentals for TV Shows are the way to go, just like it was for movies. The same logic SJ used in that keynote applies here. Your pricing is right on too.
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu can't be played on cellphones
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu can't be played offline
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu doesn't necessarily have shows the next day
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu doesn't have any paid-cable shows
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu uses a very low bit rate compared to iTunes
? Wow, such a deal, considering Hulu has ads, iTunes doesn't.
I watch many shows via Hulu but that doesn't mean I can't see the benefit of other options.
Best. Ever.
Seriously .99 is the sweet spot. This will increase sales of shows for sure, and not to mention will help other media, like music videos, drop in price too. Win for us!
ie: I expected something more like $2/episode, but only $18 for all 20 episodes
This would really encourage season purchases!
This is good, but not good enough. I watch maybe 3 shows on a regular basis, and if I could get internet delivery, I'd watch another 3 or 4. If these are 4 times a week, 4 weeks a month, that's $16 a month for each show, or maybe as much as $100 a month. My cable bill is only about $45 a month.
Just out of interest - since all shows run less than half the year - are you saying you'd watch 8 shows over the entire year? or in any given week there'd be 8 shows you're regularly watching, even in the non-ratings period?
It's an important difference, as it changes $100 a month to less than $42/mth.