Much of what you've said makes sense, and I agree there's a huge amount of inconsistencies apparent that don't seem to reconcile very well, IF their efforts are all intended for the iPad. But.... another thing I noticed was that you used the word "Mono". Are you serious, the iPad is mono??? Please say it's not true.
It is not true. The iPad will output 5.1 sound. Anything less would be a horrible flaw.
But even at $1.99 per episode, it's worth it to us for being commercial-free, and for knowing that each time we watch the show that it will be an episode we haven't seen before.
We also buy season passes to "NCIS".
That's for SD though. HD episodes are $2.99. That's just outrageous.
I'm all for lowering the prices of TV episodes, but aside from that, we just bought a season pass for season 20 of "Law and Order" for $25.99 which got us 16 episodes so far, which works out to $1.63 per. Season 19 had 22 episodes, so the price per may go down to about $1.18 or so.
But even at $1.99 per episode, it's worth it to us for being commercial-free, and for knowing that each time we watch the show that it will be an episode we haven't seen before.
We also buy season passes to "NCIS".
I think it would ultimately be better for us the viewers if the whole system evolved into something like what it is now on the Apple Store. That way we the viewers can more directly "vote" on shows with our "wallets" instead of being subjected to behind the scenes deals between studios and cable providers.
We also love our Apple TV and look forward to future enhancements of it.
Your obviously in the small percentage of the high end market and there is nothing wrong with that, but if Apple wants to sell a lot of devices, they need lots of content AND low prices for that content as to make it appear paying $499 or more for a iPad a worthwhile investment.
Apple reminds me a lot of Disney World, you get inside the park and all of a sudden get confronted with little choices, few options and high prices.
What is Apple's goal in the equation? Eliminate advertising or simplify access to content? If it is the latter, why can't they just make the same arrangements as Cable operators for the content and cash in on well-targeted advertising? If it is the former, well, the networks have cause for concern.
Sorry but that's just about as bad as Steve trying to explain why the newest iPod sensation only supports MONO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLuv
It is not true. The iPad will output 5.1 sound. Anything less would be a horrible flaw.
The iPad techspec says this:
Quote:
Input and output
Dock connector port
3.5-mm stereo headphone jack
Built-in speaker
Microphone
Micro SIM card tray (Wi-Fi + 3G model only)
I can't say from this anyhing about the built-in speaker, it can very well be mono (the iPhone has a mono speaker too, btw), which is fine, IMO. However, the headphone jack is stereo. This allows you to listen to movies and video audio in streo through a set of headphones.
You can definitely connect a set of stereo speakers, or a car audio system to this jack in order to get audio in stereo from the iPad.
Not sure about 5.1 audio, though, as it is not specified in the tech spec. Anyway, don't you need a Toslink digital optical port for that (like you have on the AppleTV)?
LOL, the TV execs are just as stupid as the record industry execs.
Digital downloads make more money for the record labels, and yet those guys are still bitter about Apple's emergence as the dominant digital music retailer. CD album sales were already sucking before, don't blame Apple for your outdated business model.
The TV execs are scared sh_tless of losing control, but today's consumer is already wresting away from them. Frankly, they should shut their mouths, sign the deal, and go buy some shares of AAPL.
And that in a nutshell is why Bit Torrent thrives.
The studios are blind to the fact that their existing business models are failing and they are not willing to buy into newer and more up-to-date models such as the ones offers by Apple. As long as this will percist, TV (and Movie) piracy will continue and grow.
Btw, I am an avid iTunes Strore user, but I must admit that the prices in the store for video are too expensive for most users.
What is Apple's goal in the equation? Eliminate advertising or simplify access to content? If it is the latter, why can't they just make the same arrangements as Cable operators for the content and cash in on well-targeted advertising? If it is the former, well, the networks have cause for concern.
Apple has never been against advertising. After all, they made a concerted effort to acquire AdMob, but got beat by Google. Many of the 150,000+ apps in the App Store are ad-supported.
Apple has consistently used content (music, video, movies, apps) to drive sales of its high-margin hardware. That is presumably what they are trying to do with cheap TV episode downloads or their temporarily-shelved plans at TV subscriptions.
I wish I could rent TV shows from iTunes. I can't see filling my bookshelves with hard drives to store hi def tv shows and having more time capsules to back up my purchases. HD file sizes have to really add up over time.
Excellent point. Sometimes I use my Apple TV to purchase a show if my DVR failed to record it for whatever reason. But after I've watched it, I don't need it anymore. They need to have someway to recognize the difference for someone that wants to watch it once and someone that wants to keep it as you would as if you're buying the DVD of a season.
Having said that, network execs need to get their heads out of their butts. NBC lost money on the Olympics, CBS is losing money on the NCAA tournament. Ad revenue is drying up yet the networks still are hestitant to try different revenue streams. How these guys and gals keep their jobs is beyond me.
I'd buy that for a buck! I'd rather pay per episode than have a subscription.
I buy a few shows of iTunes now. I'd buy significantly more if they were $1. I can see a rental model for TV shows. Rent a show and you have 24 hours to finish watching it. Either that or a subscription model with advertising.
The studios are blind to the fact that their existing business models are failing and they are not willing to buy into newer and more up-to-date models such as the ones offers by Apple. As long as this will percist, TV (and Movie) piracy will continue and grow.
Btw, I am an avid iTunes Strore user, but I must admit that the prices in the store for video are too expensive for most users.
The prices are fine for someone who only watches 1-2 shows in a season. To get a more mainstream audience it needs to cost less. Older movie rentals should also be $1. That is the only way your going to compete against Netflix. I bet a $1 rental would make the movie studios much more then someone watching on Netflix. Previous seasons should also cost less (they are on Netflix too). Maybe that's where they will start? Previous seasons $1?
Excellent point. Sometimes I use my Apple TV to purchase a show if my DVR failed to record it for whatever reason. But after I've watched it, I don't need it anymore. They need to have someway to recognize the difference for someone that wants to watch it once and someone that wants to keep it as you would as if you're buying the DVD of a season.
Having said that, network execs need to get their heads out of their butts. NBC lost money on the Olympics, CBS is losing money on the NCAA tournament. Ad revenue is drying up yet the networks still are hestitant to try different revenue streams. How these guys and gals keep their jobs is beyond me.
+1 for this kind of usage.
If I could be bothered to spend the time, I'd have no qualms about pulling the TV show of the Torrents (on the basis that I've already paid for it with my Sky subscription -- I always skip through the ads).
If the TV shows were cheaper, I'd buy more. They're too bloody expensive at the moment, anyway.
Plan 'A' will eventually come about I suspect and SJ is correct IMHO that it will be a new and better market than cable. He should go ahead with Disney and ESPN if he can.
Comments
The iPad does so support HD. It is 768 which is HD. More FUD from a Hater...
Can it output HD? Is it in the 16:9 HD ratio?
The iPad does so support HD. It is 768 which is HD. More FUD from a Hater...
Can it output HD? Is it in the 16:9 HD ratio?
Let's not go down this whole "is it HD or isn't it" debate again. It's been discussed ad-nauseam already.
Much of what you've said makes sense, and I agree there's a huge amount of inconsistencies apparent that don't seem to reconcile very well, IF their efforts are all intended for the iPad. But.... another thing I noticed was that you used the word "Mono". Are you serious, the iPad is mono??? Please say it's not true.
It is not true. The iPad will output 5.1 sound. Anything less would be a horrible flaw.
But even at $1.99 per episode, it's worth it to us for being commercial-free, and for knowing that each time we watch the show that it will be an episode we haven't seen before.
We also buy season passes to "NCIS".
That's for SD though. HD episodes are $2.99. That's just outrageous.
Can it output HD? Is it in the 16:9 HD ratio?
It is 728p. That is HD.
And yes, it will display 16:9.
Now go away.
I'm all for lowering the prices of TV episodes, but aside from that, we just bought a season pass for season 20 of "Law and Order" for $25.99 which got us 16 episodes so far, which works out to $1.63 per. Season 19 had 22 episodes, so the price per may go down to about $1.18 or so.
But even at $1.99 per episode, it's worth it to us for being commercial-free, and for knowing that each time we watch the show that it will be an episode we haven't seen before.
We also buy season passes to "NCIS".
I think it would ultimately be better for us the viewers if the whole system evolved into something like what it is now on the Apple Store. That way we the viewers can more directly "vote" on shows with our "wallets" instead of being subjected to behind the scenes deals between studios and cable providers.
We also love our Apple TV and look forward to future enhancements of it.
Your obviously in the small percentage of the high end market and there is nothing wrong with that, but if Apple wants to sell a lot of devices, they need lots of content AND low prices for that content as to make it appear paying $499 or more for a iPad a worthwhile investment.
Apple reminds me a lot of Disney World, you get inside the park and all of a sudden get confronted with little choices, few options and high prices.
It is not true. The iPad will output 5.1 sound. Anything less would be a horrible flaw.
Thanks for the clarification. I was genuinely worried about it. 5.1 sounds pretty good to me!
Sorry but that's just about as bad as Steve trying to explain why the newest iPod sensation only supports MONO.
It is not true. The iPad will output 5.1 sound. Anything less would be a horrible flaw.
The iPad techspec says this:
Input and output
Dock connector port
3.5-mm stereo headphone jack
Built-in speaker
Microphone
Micro SIM card tray (Wi-Fi + 3G model only)
I can't say from this anyhing about the built-in speaker, it can very well be mono (the iPhone has a mono speaker too, btw), which is fine, IMO. However, the headphone jack is stereo. This allows you to listen to movies and video audio in streo through a set of headphones.
You can definitely connect a set of stereo speakers, or a car audio system to this jack in order to get audio in stereo from the iPad.
Not sure about 5.1 audio, though, as it is not specified in the tech spec. Anyway, don't you need a Toslink digital optical port for that (like you have on the AppleTV)?
It is 728p. That is HD.
And yes, it will display 16:9.
Now go away.
You meant the iPad is 768p, right? There is no 728p, but there is 720p.
Digital downloads make more money for the record labels, and yet those guys are still bitter about Apple's emergence as the dominant digital music retailer. CD album sales were already sucking before, don't blame Apple for your outdated business model.
The TV execs are scared sh_tless of losing control, but today's consumer is already wresting away from them. Frankly, they should shut their mouths, sign the deal, and go buy some shares of AAPL.
And that in a nutshell is why Bit Torrent thrives.
The studios are blind to the fact that their existing business models are failing and they are not willing to buy into newer and more up-to-date models such as the ones offers by Apple. As long as this will percist, TV (and Movie) piracy will continue and grow.
Btw, I am an avid iTunes Strore user, but I must admit that the prices in the store for video are too expensive for most users.
What is Apple's goal in the equation? Eliminate advertising or simplify access to content? If it is the latter, why can't they just make the same arrangements as Cable operators for the content and cash in on well-targeted advertising? If it is the former, well, the networks have cause for concern.
Apple has never been against advertising. After all, they made a concerted effort to acquire AdMob, but got beat by Google. Many of the 150,000+ apps in the App Store are ad-supported.
Apple has consistently used content (music, video, movies, apps) to drive sales of its high-margin hardware. That is presumably what they are trying to do with cheap TV episode downloads or their temporarily-shelved plans at TV subscriptions.
I wish I could rent TV shows from iTunes. I can't see filling my bookshelves with hard drives to store hi def tv shows and having more time capsules to back up my purchases. HD file sizes have to really add up over time.
Excellent point. Sometimes I use my Apple TV to purchase a show if my DVR failed to record it for whatever reason. But after I've watched it, I don't need it anymore. They need to have someway to recognize the difference for someone that wants to watch it once and someone that wants to keep it as you would as if you're buying the DVD of a season.
Having said that, network execs need to get their heads out of their butts. NBC lost money on the Olympics, CBS is losing money on the NCAA tournament. Ad revenue is drying up yet the networks still are hestitant to try different revenue streams. How these guys and gals keep their jobs is beyond me.
I'd buy that for a buck! I'd rather pay per episode than have a subscription.
I buy a few shows of iTunes now. I'd buy significantly more if they were $1. I can see a rental model for TV shows. Rent a show and you have 24 hours to finish watching it. Either that or a subscription model with advertising.
The studios are blind to the fact that their existing business models are failing and they are not willing to buy into newer and more up-to-date models such as the ones offers by Apple. As long as this will percist, TV (and Movie) piracy will continue and grow.
Btw, I am an avid iTunes Strore user, but I must admit that the prices in the store for video are too expensive for most users.
The prices are fine for someone who only watches 1-2 shows in a season. To get a more mainstream audience it needs to cost less. Older movie rentals should also be $1. That is the only way your going to compete against Netflix. I bet a $1 rental would make the movie studios much more then someone watching on Netflix. Previous seasons should also cost less (they are on Netflix too). Maybe that's where they will start? Previous seasons $1?
WHAT??!!!
snip...
I got Netflix, a PS3/$99 Roku and we can stream as much as we want for a mere $8 and change a month.
Our family watches 2 movies before the kids go off to bed and then the two of us watch one TV show each before falling off to sleep.
...snip
Wow, you watch a lot of TV.
Excellent point. Sometimes I use my Apple TV to purchase a show if my DVR failed to record it for whatever reason. But after I've watched it, I don't need it anymore. They need to have someway to recognize the difference for someone that wants to watch it once and someone that wants to keep it as you would as if you're buying the DVD of a season.
Having said that, network execs need to get their heads out of their butts. NBC lost money on the Olympics, CBS is losing money on the NCAA tournament. Ad revenue is drying up yet the networks still are hestitant to try different revenue streams. How these guys and gals keep their jobs is beyond me.
+1 for this kind of usage.
If I could be bothered to spend the time, I'd have no qualms about pulling the TV show of the Torrents (on the basis that I've already paid for it with my Sky subscription -- I always skip through the ads).
If the TV shows were cheaper, I'd buy more. They're too bloody expensive at the moment, anyway.