Networks skeptical of Apple's push for $1 iTunes TV episodes
Reply 41 of 44
February 22, 2010 5:33PM
I don't like to pay for TV shows. My vote is that they make a version with the commercials and a pay for version that's commercial free at the $1 price. Since video quality is a differentiator for charging more or less for a given episode or series, it wouldn't hurt to have a free version that just has the commercials. Many people have DVR's and are accustomed to fast forwarding through the commercials, which I personally don't mind doing unless a commercial captures my attention and I'll watch it. My 2 cents
Reply 42 of 44
February 22, 2010 8:36PM
How much money do these companies think we have. Every time I turn around someone else wants to charge for a product that should cost less, not more, or should be free. Apple knows that there's not a show out there worth the price they're forced to charge & aren't afraid to stand up & be a voice for their customers. these network idiots forget that until iTunes came along this revenue stream wasn't even available & is as close to total profit as you can get. This is plain old price gouging to the tenth degree & I'll never understand why people bought even one tv show at the current prices.
Reply 43 of 44
February 22, 2010 8:49PM
An important point to remember is who really watches a TV show again after the first time? Movies are rewatchable because they are self-contained 2 hr periods. A serial TV show is meant to be watched in a sequence from one to the next. This is one of many reasons why buying a TV show never made much sense to me. I only care to watch it once. No TV show episode is really ever that good to watch again and again.
And the only reason why people by DVDs in the first place is that's the only way to watch them in order. But for the person who's been following a series but missed an episode from a week, it's wasteful to buy an episode and watch it once, and even stupider to wait and buy the DVD.
At the very least, streaming >>> owning for TV show content. Movies make a bit more sense to own, and music even more so (since it's listened to again and again).
Reply 44 of 44
February 23, 2010 6:44AM
Originally Posted by
For the same reason that it doesn't make sense to pay $60 per month to the Cable company if you rarely watch, it also doesn't make sense to pay Apple $30 per month and only watch 2 shows.
1. Lower the price drastically which will spur consumption. Why pay $0.99 for something you won't watch again? Doesn't make sense.
a. Should be $0.49 or less for HD quality streaming.
b. They would get triple the volume of sales.
c. This would also cut down on pirating.
2. To supplement income based on the lower price, sell one ad slot.
a. A single one minute commercial.
b. This can be done like the FBI warning on DVDs with no fast forwarding.
3. To counter lost sales of DVDs, this model should only be for streaming access. Purchasing episodes for download would be at higher rates - $1.99/2.99...
ex. Lala.com's 0.10 internet purchases of music compared to download of $0.89.
4. Allow people to discover new shows with free streaming of a few episodes of every show.
5. Allow content providers the ability to purchase advertising spots in iTunes to promote their shows based on purchasing history.
ex. I like Lost, so I might like Flash Forward.
6. Allow networks to host streaming of live events ie. Sports, Oscars... This solves for people's biggest compliant about cutting cable - access to sports.
7. The consumption model allows a clear way to compensate creative and production staff - percentage of each sale. This should encourage independent producers to put their shows on iTunes.
.99 cts to own a TV show sounds great ?? or does it ??
yet with endless replays and the same epidsodes to had for free on the tv stations own media players or netflix/roku hulu
i wonder if the drop in pricing is to remain competive ??
an amazing battle will follow
i will wait for the extended play BD full season discs when best put them in the bargain BIN