I respectfully disagree. Sometimes, I miss a TV show because I failed to record it, or maybe I saw a new show mid-season and decided I'd like to view the rest. Renting for $0.99 is like buying music for $0.99. It's cheap enough to be an impulse buy. And even though you don't actually OWN the TV episode, I think the economics favor that route. I don't have to pay double or more to buy just one episode, which sucks up storage space. I'm not forced to pay full price for a whole season. If it streams over the web, then I can presumably watch it anywhere I go.
In truth, I don't care to own my TV episodes (or movies for that matter) in digital form the way I wanted my music in digital form simply because with video, visual compression artifacts are far more noticeable than in audible music. And video is much larger in terms of file size than audio as well. So if I can pay rock-bottom price just to rent one to watch it and no intention or need to own it, I like this idea.
agreed
when i lost 5 episodes
the only way itunes could rewcver the lpst 5 was to give me back every thing i ever bought frpm day one
music movies and tv shows
well 7 days of downloads
and scorers upon scores of tv shows
besides batle str galactica i did not really want these back
anyway i saw that i would rather pay 99cts or 1.2octs for hd rather than owning the first season of ""lie to me ""
i e would have saved hundreds of dollars
oddly except for high end HD shows
HULU >>NETFLIX or the TV station itself has the same shows for free or almosty free.
why buy at all ??
apple should sell shows for 99cts in HD // bluray and store copies for us in there new server farm cloud .
A move from a $2 buy to $1 rental could have some pretty negative impacts. Based on some of Jobs recent comments, I don't think Jobs really understands why digital music works and what people want in digital video. I also get a sense of reluctance to try other business plans.
I absolutely disagree. I think the TV market is complex because nobody has ever made it simple. It would be an easy market for Apple to enter. Selling TVs is not rocket science.
...
The flip side is sticking with an Apple TV box model, which makes no sense. Apple wouldn't make any margin selling a $99 box. And they wouldn't make any margin selling 99 cent TV shows. There is no money it it. They have to sell the TV and make big margin on a big ticket item. Then they make a small recurring profit on each TV show and movie they sell/rent. Its the iPod and iPhone model all over again.
There is a reason Apple TV is called Apple TV: because the real product that they've been planning for years is the iTV. Its an actual TV.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTV... the Apple ecosystem wherever you are.
Apple in the transition to a consumer electronics company has changed from the Apple Computer days (having been a solid Apple fan since 1992). Previously they were fine being an expensive niche, by virtue that they didn't really have much of a choice to survive. But w/ the advent of the iPod, and now iPhone & iPad, they are only into products they can move millions of units a year in, even tens of millions of units/yr. I don't think anything they plan on releasing from here on out would be considered an internal success w/ sales less than a few million.
So a TV would be crazy expensive, they'd be competing a market where even w/ Apple TV integrated, there is little to differentiate in (less than in computers like OS X vs. Windows) and they would only move a few 100k a year on a good estimate.
So what does that leave; exactly what all the rumors are pointing at, a slimmed down box that is cheap and distributes the functionality of Apple's iOS for living room to everyone w/ a TV, ie millions and millions of units a year.
The more iOS devices Apple sells, the better economies of scale they have, especially for A4 processors and such. They were never able to get such large economies of scale w/ Macs because they unit count was so small compared w/ the Windows world. But now Apple has among the largest economies of scale, from flash memory, to ARM processors, to screens and so on. Adding a few more million units for the aTV that is basically an iPod touch w/o a screen would just throw that much more scale into the equation.
Why limit the near limitless possibilities of the aTV device to all iOS users to the few willing to shell out a fortune for an actual Apple TV, when they can move iTunes and iOS-living room into their near iOS base of 100 million devices?
{response to my comment that Apple doesn't add value on a TV}
Apple's value adds are ease of use, reliability, quality and appealing industrial design and last not least the Apple ecosystem. I think these could make a rather compelling TV if executed well.
As for ease of use I don't think existing TVs are easy to use. They generally are if you are just flipping channels and adjusting the volume. But what about the emerging connected TV market? So far those are anything but easy to use and they accomplish very little.
None of your examples mean anything:
TV - ease of use. Even a moron can use a TV today. It is going to be extraordinarily difficult to make it any easier to use a TV. No way to add value (it is, of course, possible to make the entire TV ecosystem - cable box, DVD player, stereo, VHS, etc easier to use, but that doesn't require any improvements to the TV - just a better set top box).
Reliability. TVs have extraordinary reliability today. Even the worst TVs have a couple percent DOA rates - far lower than even the best computers. The best TVs have almost no out of box failures - so how is Apple going to beat them?
Industrial design. Compared to someone like Dell, it was easy.Or the average phone. Or MP3 player. But TVs already have great design. Heck, with some companies like Sony bringing 50+ years of TV design experience, Apple has a lot of catching up to do.
Performance? There is a tiny subset of people who buy TVs for exceptional performance characteristics (faster refresh, 'blacker blacks', etc). However, the majority of those claims are blatant lies. Read up on TV refresh rates some time. Not to mention that even a bad TV today is good enough to give a stellar picture. Even if Apple were able to improve TVs further (which may not be easy since it's not among their core capabilities), only a diminishingly small number of people would pay a significant premium - AND MOST OF THEM WOULD NEVER BUY AN APPLE TV.
The Apple Ecosystem has value, but it has far more value as a separate set top box. Instead of trying to design a series of TVs in all different sizes, they design one set top box -which customers can use with any TV they choose.
Apple in the transition to a consumer electronics company has changed from the Apple Computer days (having been a solid Apple fan since 1992). Previously they were fine being an expensive niche, by virtue that they didn't really have much of a choice to survive. But w/ the advent of the iPod, and now iPhone & iPad, they are only into products they can move millions of units a year in, even tens of millions of units/yr. I don't think anything they plan on releasing from here on out would be considered an internal success w/ sales less than a few million.
So a TV would be crazy expensive, they'd be competing a market where even w/ Apple TV integrated, there is little to differentiate in (less than in computers like OS X vs. Windows) and they would only move a few 100k a year on a good estimate.
So what does that leave; exactly what all the rumors are pointing at, a slimmed down box that is cheap and distributes the functionality of Apple's iOS for living room to everyone w/ a TV, ie millions and millions of units a year.
The more iOS devices Apple sells, the better economies of scale they have, especially for A4 processors and such. They were never able to get such large economies of scale w/ Macs because they unit count was so small compared w/ the Windows world. But now Apple has among the largest economies of scale, from flash memory, to ARM processors, to screens and so on. Adding a few more million units for the aTV that is basically an iPod touch w/o a screen would just throw that much more scale into the equation.
Why limit the near limitless possibilities of the aTV device to all iOS users to the few willing to shell out a fortune for an actual Apple TV, when they can move iTunes and iOS-living room into their near iOS base of 100 million devices?
Point by point i agree with you. Apple couldn't possibly compete with the major TV manufacturers. Sure it would be a great way to get into the TV market, but if they are going for the biggest bang for the buck, selling millions of aTV's for $99 is way more favorable than selling a few 100k TV's for a huge price. Let's just speculate here that Apple would probably go for 2 models, a 46" and a 55" selling for an estimated $2399 and $3199. This is based on the fact that their 30" Cinema Display goes for $1799, and some top end TV models (non 3D) range about those prices.
Here's where I start SPECULATING, so don't jump down my throat for making baseless preditions.
It is estimated that in 2000, there was a total 101 million TV sets in the USA. In 2007, Vizio had the highest grossing number of TV sales with 604 thousand units sold. If Apple did the same, which is unlikely considering they are a High-End Manufacturer. That same year, Sony sold 264 thousand set ranking 6th in overall sales, closer to what Apple woudl probably sell.
Given that, if Apple sold 250k TV's in a year, that's = $700 million.
If Apple sold 6-10 million aTV's at $99 a pop, that's = $800 million.
It's a close call after you do some educated guessing, but i still think that the STB is the more likely solution Apple will go for. Plus, if more people buy into the STB, you'd get more rentals, movie/games/music/apps purchases with over 300% more users. But they may suprise us all with both versions, the STB and the all-in-one TV. Who knows, but it'll be interesting to watch.
Personally, I would go for the STB. I have a TV, Blu-Ray and home theater set-up that i'm pretty satisfied with for the time being. Bought it all in 2006 and probably won't buy another TV untill 2016 at the least, or untill it breaks. Had my last TV (JVC 31" CRT) for 15 years.
As for ease of use I don't think existing TVs are easy to use. They generally are if you are just flipping channels and adjusting the volume. But what about the emerging connected TV market? So far those are anything but easy to use and they accomplish very little.
For most users (even those who have the digital over-the-air converter boxes) TV UI's hardly get used at all, save for picture adjustments and switching sources from TV to DVD to Gaming. Most people have either a cable, SATV, Dish, or even Converter boxes that control the TV.
I respectfully disagree. Sometimes, I miss a TV show because I failed to record it, or maybe I saw a new show mid-season and decided I'd like to view the rest. Renting for $0.99 is like buying music for $0.99. It's cheap enough to be an impulse buy. And even though you don't actually OWN the TV episode, I think the economics favor that route. I don't have to pay double or more to buy just one episode, which sucks up storage space. I'm not forced to pay full price for a whole season. If it streams over the web, then I can presumably watch it anywhere I go.
In truth, I don't care to own my TV episodes (or movies for that matter) in digital form the way I wanted my music in digital form simply because with video, visual compression artifacts are far more noticeable than in audible music. And video is much larger in terms of file size than audio as well. So if I can pay rock-bottom price just to rent one to watch it and no intention or need to own it, I like this idea.
Music you get to keep, this is a rental. I totally agree that .99 for rental is way too much vs own it for 1.99. Shoot for .25 and they might get somewhere, or offer whole season rental at like 2.99.
With services like Hulu and Netflix as well as easily available RedBox people really don't want to pay the rental premiums that Apple is currently charging. They really need to drop their SD rental costs significantly. If I knew I could rent it from Apple for like 1.50 I probably would, save gas and no need to worry about returns.
HD rentals can stay where they are at, it's a pretty fair price already.
I love the idea of renting because those old TV shows really clutter up the Apple TV and subsequently the iTunes server. I'd rather risk the occasional re-rental than store those old shows. Following is my idea to minimize "premature" re-rentals.
If my daughter rents a show (say, Community) via the Apple TV on Friday, my son might watch it with friends on Saturday and my wife and I would like to be able to watch it too, but not until Sunday night.
Why not have the rentals stay valid for the typical period between episodes? If it is a nightly show, then it is fine with me if the rentals last 24 hours, once begun. If it is a weekly show, then 7 days, once begun, seems fair.
A $10 to $15 per month "all you can eat" plan is much better than charging per item. Even though 99c isn't a lot, it still means I have to decide whether or not I want to spend my buck on a show that maybe I don't like. It limits exploration. It makes it feel like you're dealing with a constrained resource. I love Netflix, because I never have to worry about these things.
Before I had a Netflix account I sometimes would rent using my AppleTV. Now I almost never do. $5 on a movie is a third of my monthly Netflix charge. It seems ridiculously expensive in comparison. I can easily watch 15 movies a month with Netflix or about a 99c per movie. This compares well to the Redbox 99c movie rental. If Apple insists on doing an ala-cart model, that's the price point they should be looking at. So, if its 99c for a movie, how about 25c for a half hour show, and 50c for an hour show. That would seem a lot more fair.
i am cool with this if they offer both options. If not i think this idea sucks. There are some episodes i like so much that i want to "own it". Renting will not give me that option. If they offered both options i would be so on board and perhaps rent a lot more content even though i have 2 tivos storing 4TBs of programming. I'd prefer this to netflix only if they could match the deal as netflix is the cheaper option. i agree with the above post but i would rather use an appletv if they made the programming more affordable without taking away an options. They need to lower the cost of renting content for both SD and HD. Many times i can find the dvds for a lot less then what apple charges. I think in such cases they need to be adjusting the market price. That would make AppleTV more appealing. I just bought one so now i thinking perhaps it was a mistake.
A $10 to $15 per month "all you can eat" plan is much better than charging per item. Even though 99c isn't a lot, it still means I have to decide whether or not I want to spend my buck on a show that maybe I don't like. It limits exploration. It makes it feel like you're dealing with a constrained resource. I love Netflix, because I never have to worry about these things.
Before I had a Netflix account I sometimes would rent using my AppleTV. Now I almost never do. $5 on a movie is a third of my monthly Netflix charge. It seems ridiculously expensive in comparison. I can easily watch 15 movies a month with Netflix or about a 99c per movie. This compares well to the Redbox 99c movie rental. If Apple insists on doing an ala-cart model, that's the price point they should be looking at. So, if its 99c for a movie, how about 25c for a half hour show, and 50c for an hour show. That would seem a lot more fair.
Why does one size have to fit all?
U]Scenerio 00:[/U] I'm taking a long, intercontinental flight. I've checked the entertainment selection and I'm not interested. Also, either the WiFi is too slow to stream or, more likely, they don't offer any. I rent a bunch if TV shows, maybe even try a new one.
Scenerio 01: I don't have or want Netflix and have no DVR, but I've missed an episode in a series and don't want to plan for the rerun on a few months time while watching the rest out of order. I also don't want to wait weeks before it comes to Hulu or pay for Hulu Plus. I don't want to buy it because l, while I like this show, chances are I'll only watch it once.
Scenerio 10: I have a DVR, I have Hulu Plus, and I have Netflix, but my job has sent me to a location with pretty much no Internet. I have my iPad and a mediocre Internet at work that won't work for streaming because it's slow and because I'm busy, but it will let me slowly grab episodes of TV shows slowly over the work day.
Seems to me Apple is giving us another option. It makes no sense to offer what the offers offer with no change. The one thing Apple has going for it is the ubiquity of iDevices and iTunes enabled PCs/Macs, and 8 kazillion accounts that have shown they are willing to pay a little more for less quality if it's convenient enough (eg: iTMS).
For me, this is the option I've been asking for (seriously, I've been posting here for years asking for iTS TV rentals (and App Store trials) using teir exploding FairPlay DRM).
The only other alternative I can think of is using personal buying habits to interfuse ads at various intervals. This can be done by keeping the video chopped and ads put in, server-side, when you make the purchase. QT 7 can put these in a container almost instantly on my Mac so I imagine it would be child's play for iTS. This could allow you to get ad-fused content that can be viewed offline for a set time frame. They can easily make the player not jump ahead during commercial breaks.
What makes you so sure the content providers will play with Apple, when the cable companies provide a highly profitable alternative?
I'm not sure, but I think its possible as long as anything Apple provides is complimentary to cable service rather than a direct replacement for cable service. Apple has to prove that this would increase revenues, not merely cannibalize them. Did iTunes reduce music sales? Or did it save the music industry?
Most people are always going to want the ability to turn on the TV and flip through the channels to see whats on. They want the ability to record a variety of shows and to discover new shows that they may not already be watching. This experience can't be replaced by oddball buy/rent per episode services or by the rumoured Apple TV series subscription service. All it takes is for one show to be missing from this availability and the user will default back to cable service.
Considering this I think its possible that Apple could offer a complimentary service and allow customers to buy/rent content ondemand and in addition having cable service. This is in fact what they are already doing with Apple TV, but the execution is hindering its success. Cable companies can keep their subscribers and the networks can continue to sell shows to both the cable companies and via services like iTunes.
This dual delivery model is already starting to establish itself (cable service plus ondemand content). The problem is that its moving at such an excruciatingly slow pace. What we need is someone with a disruptive technology to enter the market and stir things up. Google and Apple are both well positioned to do this because they don't have a vested interest in the existing cable market.
Now, if the cable companies are successful in gobbling up all the good networks and gain control of all the good content then we're in trouble.
Quote:
Lastly, this idea that Apple has to sell a TV to sell its service. What logic is there in that? Why do they have to sell TVs to sell you the TV service? If they do that and restrict access to the TV service, it would actually hurt the uptake of this service. The ideal to make it accessible to the billions of people who already have HDTVs at home. For these people, they need a box not another TV.
Apple already sells a box. If a separate box is the solution why hasn't Apple TV taken off yet? Apple can't keep doing what they've been doing for 3 years and expect different results. Cutting the price of the box and cutting the price of the content isn't going to have any impact. Its like telling GM that the solution to all their problems would have been to lower their prices. Its not pricing thats the problem, its execution.
How much do you spend a year on a cable/sat subscription? How many new programs, not reruns of older shows but actual first run shows, do you watch within that year?
Divide the former by the latter and that is how much you are paying per show you watch. Take that and divide it by the number of eps in a season and that is how much you are paying per eps.
I highly doubt that your number will be significantly lower that $0.99.
I have to wonder if ANY of you bother actually READING the article: "Apple is reportedly in talks with TV studios to sell them on the idea of renting TV episodes for 99 cents rather than selling downloads for $1.99."
I could see the logic if the price differential was 9.99 (buy) vs 2.99 (rent) but this idea assumes the average iTune user is a total and utter moron.
I have to ask just what idiot would not spend the extra 1.00 to own the episode they got when ever they felt like again and again if they wanted.
I have to ask just what idiot would not spend the extra 1.00 to own the episode they got when ever they felt like again and again if they wanted.
I guess us idiots that only want to watch a show once. I've deleted some scenerios a couple posts up showing clear examples why this option is food for consumers.
I don't think their use of the word "rather"us accurate. I see no reason the sales would not be included next to the rentals, just like their movies.
When I watch something, I always want to watch it again later... and potentially share with my friends. I'd rather spend the extra $ and GET the episode than to pay 99 cents just to see it once.
Its the opposite for me, anyway 2$ buy option will still be there you just buy in itunes on a mac then stream it to your tv after assuming you have the "new" Apple TV with no HD.
Comments
I respectfully disagree. Sometimes, I miss a TV show because I failed to record it, or maybe I saw a new show mid-season and decided I'd like to view the rest. Renting for $0.99 is like buying music for $0.99. It's cheap enough to be an impulse buy. And even though you don't actually OWN the TV episode, I think the economics favor that route. I don't have to pay double or more to buy just one episode, which sucks up storage space. I'm not forced to pay full price for a whole season. If it streams over the web, then I can presumably watch it anywhere I go.
In truth, I don't care to own my TV episodes (or movies for that matter) in digital form the way I wanted my music in digital form simply because with video, visual compression artifacts are far more noticeable than in audible music. And video is much larger in terms of file size than audio as well. So if I can pay rock-bottom price just to rent one to watch it and no intention or need to own it, I like this idea.
agreed
when i lost 5 episodes
the only way itunes could rewcver the lpst 5 was to give me back every thing i ever bought frpm day one
music movies and tv shows
well 7 days of downloads
and scorers upon scores of tv shows
besides batle str galactica i did not really want these back
anyway i saw that i would rather pay 99cts or 1.2octs for hd rather than owning the first season of ""lie to me ""
i e would have saved hundreds of dollars
oddly except for high end HD shows
HULU >>NETFLIX or the TV station itself has the same shows for free or almosty free.
why buy at all ??
apple should sell shows for 99cts in HD // bluray and store copies for us in there new server farm cloud .
apple seems like they can do no wrong lately
nano phone is coming
9
This makes the Hulu+ service look totally awesome.
For the price of 10 rentals, I can see a bunch of different content for $9.99 with Hulu+.
Netflix for $8.99 (or $10.99 Blu-ray) and $9.99 Hulu+ gives you a good deal of content.
I like the idea of streaming options. I hope more networks get on board with streaming.
I would rather pay $50 a month for tons of streaming content that paying the same or more for cable or satellite.
agreed >>almosty
HULU >>AMAZON may just kill off some broad band companies
cept for live stupid yellow news
its all the same
I absolutely disagree. I think the TV market is complex because nobody has ever made it simple. It would be an easy market for Apple to enter. Selling TVs is not rocket science.
...
The flip side is sticking with an Apple TV box model, which makes no sense. Apple wouldn't make any margin selling a $99 box. And they wouldn't make any margin selling 99 cent TV shows. There is no money it it. They have to sell the TV and make big margin on a big ticket item. Then they make a small recurring profit on each TV show and movie they sell/rent. Its the iPod and iPhone model all over again.
There is a reason Apple TV is called Apple TV: because the real product that they've been planning for years is the iTV. Its an actual TV.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTV... the Apple ecosystem wherever you are.
Apple in the transition to a consumer electronics company has changed from the Apple Computer days (having been a solid Apple fan since 1992). Previously they were fine being an expensive niche, by virtue that they didn't really have much of a choice to survive. But w/ the advent of the iPod, and now iPhone & iPad, they are only into products they can move millions of units a year in, even tens of millions of units/yr. I don't think anything they plan on releasing from here on out would be considered an internal success w/ sales less than a few million.
So a TV would be crazy expensive, they'd be competing a market where even w/ Apple TV integrated, there is little to differentiate in (less than in computers like OS X vs. Windows) and they would only move a few 100k a year on a good estimate.
So what does that leave; exactly what all the rumors are pointing at, a slimmed down box that is cheap and distributes the functionality of Apple's iOS for living room to everyone w/ a TV, ie millions and millions of units a year.
The more iOS devices Apple sells, the better economies of scale they have, especially for A4 processors and such. They were never able to get such large economies of scale w/ Macs because they unit count was so small compared w/ the Windows world. But now Apple has among the largest economies of scale, from flash memory, to ARM processors, to screens and so on. Adding a few more million units for the aTV that is basically an iPod touch w/o a screen would just throw that much more scale into the equation.
Why limit the near limitless possibilities of the aTV device to all iOS users to the few willing to shell out a fortune for an actual Apple TV, when they can move iTunes and iOS-living room into their near iOS base of 100 million devices?
{response to my comment that Apple doesn't add value on a TV}
Apple's value adds are ease of use, reliability, quality and appealing industrial design and last not least the Apple ecosystem. I think these could make a rather compelling TV if executed well.
As for ease of use I don't think existing TVs are easy to use. They generally are if you are just flipping channels and adjusting the volume. But what about the emerging connected TV market? So far those are anything but easy to use and they accomplish very little.
None of your examples mean anything:
TV - ease of use. Even a moron can use a TV today. It is going to be extraordinarily difficult to make it any easier to use a TV. No way to add value (it is, of course, possible to make the entire TV ecosystem - cable box, DVD player, stereo, VHS, etc easier to use, but that doesn't require any improvements to the TV - just a better set top box).
Reliability. TVs have extraordinary reliability today. Even the worst TVs have a couple percent DOA rates - far lower than even the best computers. The best TVs have almost no out of box failures - so how is Apple going to beat them?
Industrial design. Compared to someone like Dell, it was easy.Or the average phone. Or MP3 player. But TVs already have great design. Heck, with some companies like Sony bringing 50+ years of TV design experience, Apple has a lot of catching up to do.
Performance? There is a tiny subset of people who buy TVs for exceptional performance characteristics (faster refresh, 'blacker blacks', etc). However, the majority of those claims are blatant lies. Read up on TV refresh rates some time. Not to mention that even a bad TV today is good enough to give a stellar picture. Even if Apple were able to improve TVs further (which may not be easy since it's not among their core capabilities), only a diminishingly small number of people would pay a significant premium - AND MOST OF THEM WOULD NEVER BUY AN APPLE TV.
The Apple Ecosystem has value, but it has far more value as a separate set top box. Instead of trying to design a series of TVs in all different sizes, they design one set top box -which customers can use with any TV they choose.
Apple in the transition to a consumer electronics company has changed from the Apple Computer days (having been a solid Apple fan since 1992). Previously they were fine being an expensive niche, by virtue that they didn't really have much of a choice to survive. But w/ the advent of the iPod, and now iPhone & iPad, they are only into products they can move millions of units a year in, even tens of millions of units/yr. I don't think anything they plan on releasing from here on out would be considered an internal success w/ sales less than a few million.
So a TV would be crazy expensive, they'd be competing a market where even w/ Apple TV integrated, there is little to differentiate in (less than in computers like OS X vs. Windows) and they would only move a few 100k a year on a good estimate.
So what does that leave; exactly what all the rumors are pointing at, a slimmed down box that is cheap and distributes the functionality of Apple's iOS for living room to everyone w/ a TV, ie millions and millions of units a year.
The more iOS devices Apple sells, the better economies of scale they have, especially for A4 processors and such. They were never able to get such large economies of scale w/ Macs because they unit count was so small compared w/ the Windows world. But now Apple has among the largest economies of scale, from flash memory, to ARM processors, to screens and so on. Adding a few more million units for the aTV that is basically an iPod touch w/o a screen would just throw that much more scale into the equation.
Why limit the near limitless possibilities of the aTV device to all iOS users to the few willing to shell out a fortune for an actual Apple TV, when they can move iTunes and iOS-living room into their near iOS base of 100 million devices?
Point by point i agree with you. Apple couldn't possibly compete with the major TV manufacturers. Sure it would be a great way to get into the TV market, but if they are going for the biggest bang for the buck, selling millions of aTV's for $99 is way more favorable than selling a few 100k TV's for a huge price. Let's just speculate here that Apple would probably go for 2 models, a 46" and a 55" selling for an estimated $2399 and $3199. This is based on the fact that their 30" Cinema Display goes for $1799, and some top end TV models (non 3D) range about those prices.
Here's where I start SPECULATING, so don't jump down my throat for making baseless preditions.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Vizi...-US/1187632284
In a BetaNews article:
It is estimated that in 2000, there was a total 101 million TV sets in the USA. In 2007, Vizio had the highest grossing number of TV sales with 604 thousand units sold. If Apple did the same, which is unlikely considering they are a High-End Manufacturer. That same year, Sony sold 264 thousand set ranking 6th in overall sales, closer to what Apple woudl probably sell.
Given that, if Apple sold 250k TV's in a year, that's = $700 million.
If Apple sold 6-10 million aTV's at $99 a pop, that's = $800 million.
It's a close call after you do some educated guessing, but i still think that the STB is the more likely solution Apple will go for. Plus, if more people buy into the STB, you'd get more rentals, movie/games/music/apps purchases with over 300% more users. But they may suprise us all with both versions, the STB and the all-in-one TV. Who knows, but it'll be interesting to watch.
Personally, I would go for the STB. I have a TV, Blu-Ray and home theater set-up that i'm pretty satisfied with for the time being. Bought it all in 2006 and probably won't buy another TV untill 2016 at the least, or untill it breaks. Had my last TV (JVC 31" CRT) for 15 years.
As for ease of use I don't think existing TVs are easy to use. They generally are if you are just flipping channels and adjusting the volume. But what about the emerging connected TV market? So far those are anything but easy to use and they accomplish very little.
For most users (even those who have the digital over-the-air converter boxes) TV UI's hardly get used at all, save for picture adjustments and switching sources from TV to DVD to Gaming. Most people have either a cable, SATV, Dish, or even Converter boxes that control the TV.
I respectfully disagree. Sometimes, I miss a TV show because I failed to record it, or maybe I saw a new show mid-season and decided I'd like to view the rest. Renting for $0.99 is like buying music for $0.99. It's cheap enough to be an impulse buy. And even though you don't actually OWN the TV episode, I think the economics favor that route. I don't have to pay double or more to buy just one episode, which sucks up storage space. I'm not forced to pay full price for a whole season. If it streams over the web, then I can presumably watch it anywhere I go.
In truth, I don't care to own my TV episodes (or movies for that matter) in digital form the way I wanted my music in digital form simply because with video, visual compression artifacts are far more noticeable than in audible music. And video is much larger in terms of file size than audio as well. So if I can pay rock-bottom price just to rent one to watch it and no intention or need to own it, I like this idea.
Music you get to keep, this is a rental. I totally agree that .99 for rental is way too much vs own it for 1.99. Shoot for .25 and they might get somewhere, or offer whole season rental at like 2.99.
With services like Hulu and Netflix as well as easily available RedBox people really don't want to pay the rental premiums that Apple is currently charging. They really need to drop their SD rental costs significantly. If I knew I could rent it from Apple for like 1.50 I probably would, save gas and no need to worry about returns.
HD rentals can stay where they are at, it's a pretty fair price already.
If my daughter rents a show (say, Community) via the Apple TV on Friday, my son might watch it with friends on Saturday and my wife and I would like to be able to watch it too, but not until Sunday night.
Why not have the rentals stay valid for the typical period between episodes? If it is a nightly show, then it is fine with me if the rentals last 24 hours, once begun. If it is a weekly show, then 7 days, once begun, seems fair.
Please, someone tell us how much USA spends annually on "entertainment" ?
TV, Movies, Sports, Leisure, Useless Eating Out, Farting Around ?
Add up ALL of those - and whatever else you can think of ?
Bet we're talking Trillion$, yes ?
And all of it wasted, non-productive, dragging Real Economy, etc
.
Yes, the Real Economy
Doing "stuff" and/or producing "things" that MAKE money for us, the USA
If we were exporting all of those TV Shows, Movies, Sports, etc ?
THEN we'd have something, but sorry, nope
We're just collectively jerking each other off - merely moving around the Monopoly Money
As we send any "profits" to China or out exhaust pipe of Car
THAT, in general broad-brush-stroke-terms, is the Real Economic Crisis that came 2 years ago
But has been building for 40+
.
We need to grow up - get over our juvenile junkie sugar rush of constant entertainment
And when we do "take a break" - make it for something worthy
Please, so many of you talk about $0.99 like it's nothing, and for what ?
99.999% of TV/Movies/Sports/etc ARE nothing - not worth $0.09
(and you'd want to watch them over and over ?
.
Now, all that being said, consider this ...
(once the idiot "Entertainment Moguls" get out of the way and let guys like Steve manage this)
Sell or Rent "stuff/movies/tv/etc" to OTHER Countries, WE make the money from THEM (not each other here in USA)
And, screw that $0.99 or $1.99 stuff
Make it $0.25 or $0.05 - are almost 7,000,000,000 potential customers, and growing
Even if rent one TV show a day to 1/2 of China ?
Lotta damn Nickels
.
p.s.
And bet much, if not most, of the World is like many of us
Doubtful will pay even that $0.05 for the junk out there
Barely worth download for Free from Usenet or BitTorrent
.
Before I had a Netflix account I sometimes would rent using my AppleTV. Now I almost never do. $5 on a movie is a third of my monthly Netflix charge. It seems ridiculously expensive in comparison. I can easily watch 15 movies a month with Netflix or about a 99c per movie. This compares well to the Redbox 99c movie rental. If Apple insists on doing an ala-cart model, that's the price point they should be looking at. So, if its 99c for a movie, how about 25c for a half hour show, and 50c for an hour show. That would seem a lot more fair.
A $10 to $15 per month "all you can eat" plan is much better than charging per item. Even though 99c isn't a lot, it still means I have to decide whether or not I want to spend my buck on a show that maybe I don't like. It limits exploration. It makes it feel like you're dealing with a constrained resource. I love Netflix, because I never have to worry about these things.
Before I had a Netflix account I sometimes would rent using my AppleTV. Now I almost never do. $5 on a movie is a third of my monthly Netflix charge. It seems ridiculously expensive in comparison. I can easily watch 15 movies a month with Netflix or about a 99c per movie. This compares well to the Redbox 99c movie rental. If Apple insists on doing an ala-cart model, that's the price point they should be looking at. So, if its 99c for a movie, how about 25c for a half hour show, and 50c for an hour show. That would seem a lot more fair.
Why does one size have to fit all?
U]Scenerio 00:[/U] I'm taking a long, intercontinental flight. I've checked the entertainment selection and I'm not interested. Also, either the WiFi is too slow to stream or, more likely, they don't offer any. I rent a bunch if TV shows, maybe even try a new one.
Scenerio 01: I don't have or want Netflix and have no DVR, but I've missed an episode in a series and don't want to plan for the rerun on a few months time while watching the rest out of order. I also don't want to wait weeks before it comes to Hulu or pay for Hulu Plus. I don't want to buy it because l, while I like this show, chances are I'll only watch it once.
Scenerio 10: I have a DVR, I have Hulu Plus, and I have Netflix, but my job has sent me to a location with pretty much no Internet. I have my iPad and a mediocre Internet at work that won't work for streaming because it's slow and because I'm busy, but it will let me slowly grab episodes of TV shows slowly over the work day.
Seems to me Apple is giving us another option. It makes no sense to offer what the offers offer with no change. The one thing Apple has going for it is the ubiquity of iDevices and iTunes enabled PCs/Macs, and 8 kazillion accounts that have shown they are willing to pay a little more for less quality if it's convenient enough (eg: iTMS).
For me, this is the option I've been asking for (seriously, I've been posting here for years asking for iTS TV rentals (and App Store trials) using teir exploding FairPlay DRM).
The only other alternative I can think of is using personal buying habits to interfuse ads at various intervals. This can be done by keeping the video chopped and ads put in, server-side, when you make the purchase. QT 7 can put these in a container almost instantly on my Mac so I imagine it would be child's play for iTS. This could allow you to get ad-fused content that can be viewed offline for a set time frame. They can easily make the player not jump ahead during commercial breaks.
What makes you so sure the content providers will play with Apple, when the cable companies provide a highly profitable alternative?
I'm not sure, but I think its possible as long as anything Apple provides is complimentary to cable service rather than a direct replacement for cable service. Apple has to prove that this would increase revenues, not merely cannibalize them. Did iTunes reduce music sales? Or did it save the music industry?
Most people are always going to want the ability to turn on the TV and flip through the channels to see whats on. They want the ability to record a variety of shows and to discover new shows that they may not already be watching. This experience can't be replaced by oddball buy/rent per episode services or by the rumoured Apple TV series subscription service. All it takes is for one show to be missing from this availability and the user will default back to cable service.
Considering this I think its possible that Apple could offer a complimentary service and allow customers to buy/rent content ondemand and in addition having cable service. This is in fact what they are already doing with Apple TV, but the execution is hindering its success. Cable companies can keep their subscribers and the networks can continue to sell shows to both the cable companies and via services like iTunes.
This dual delivery model is already starting to establish itself (cable service plus ondemand content). The problem is that its moving at such an excruciatingly slow pace. What we need is someone with a disruptive technology to enter the market and stir things up. Google and Apple are both well positioned to do this because they don't have a vested interest in the existing cable market.
Now, if the cable companies are successful in gobbling up all the good networks and gain control of all the good content then we're in trouble.
Lastly, this idea that Apple has to sell a TV to sell its service. What logic is there in that? Why do they have to sell TVs to sell you the TV service? If they do that and restrict access to the TV service, it would actually hurt the uptake of this service. The ideal to make it accessible to the billions of people who already have HDTVs at home. For these people, they need a box not another TV.
Apple already sells a box. If a separate box is the solution why hasn't Apple TV taken off yet? Apple can't keep doing what they've been doing for 3 years and expect different results. Cutting the price of the box and cutting the price of the content isn't going to have any impact. Its like telling GM that the solution to all their problems would have been to lower their prices. Its not pricing thats the problem, its execution.
99 cents is too much for a TV rental.
I respectfully disagree.
How much do you spend a year on a cable/sat subscription? How many new programs, not reruns of older shows but actual first run shows, do you watch within that year?
Divide the former by the latter and that is how much you are paying per show you watch. Take that and divide it by the number of eps in a season and that is how much you are paying per eps.
I highly doubt that your number will be significantly lower that $0.99.
I have to wonder if ANY of you bother actually READING the article: "Apple is reportedly in talks with TV studios to sell them on the idea of renting TV episodes for 99 cents rather than selling downloads for $1.99."
I could see the logic if the price differential was 9.99 (buy) vs 2.99 (rent) but this idea assumes the average iTune user is a total and utter moron.
I have to ask just what idiot would not spend the extra 1.00 to own the episode they got when ever they felt like again and again if they wanted.
I have to ask just what idiot would not spend the extra 1.00 to own the episode they got when ever they felt like again and again if they wanted.
I guess us idiots that only want to watch a show once. I've deleted some scenerios a couple posts up showing clear examples why this option is food for consumers.
I don't think their use of the word "rather"us accurate. I see no reason the sales would not be included next to the rentals, just like their movies.
When I watch something, I always want to watch it again later... and potentially share with my friends. I'd rather spend the extra $ and GET the episode than to pay 99 cents just to see it once.
Its the opposite for me, anyway 2$ buy option will still be there you just buy in itunes on a mac then stream it to your tv after assuming you have the "new" Apple TV with no HD.