Apple negotiating 99 cent TV show rentals ahead of new iTV - report

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
A new report alleges that Apple is in negotiations with content providers, and is in "advanced talks" with News Corp., to offer 99 cent TV show rentals ahead of an anticipated Apple TV update.



The new service, according to Bloomberg, would allow customers to rent shows through iTunes for 48 hours. News Corp. is the owner of the Fox network.



Author Peter Burrows said Apple's talks coincide with a new iPod touch with a higher-resolution screen, as well as a new cloud-centric Apple TV with less internal storage starting at $99.



In addition to Fox, CBS and ABC could also become an option in the streaming service, the report said, as the parent companies of both networks are also a part of the discussions. Apple and Disney, the owner of ABC, have a close relationship, as Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs is the single largest shareholder of stock in the Walt Disney Co.



Rumors of a 99 cent TV show rental deal previously surfaced earlier this summer. That report claimed that the offer would work just like existing iTunes movie rentals: users would have 30 days to start watching the rental, and would then have 24 hours to finish it. But unlike the movie rentals, the TV shows would be streamed instead of downloaded.



Apple has allegedly attempted to broker a deal with TV networks for months to offer a subscription TV plan, but has had no luck.



Apple's 99 cent TV show rentals could be a backup plan of sorts for the company, which is rumored to release a new set top box dubbed iTV as soon as September. Numerous reports have alleged that the device will run Apple's iOS mobile operating system and be capable of running software from the App Store.



Reports have also suggested that the new iTV will have limited internal storage in order to keep the cost of the device down. The new set top box with a small form factor is rumored to have a starting price of just $99. The device would apparently make up for its alleged lack of storage by placing an emphasis on streaming media.
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 102
    29922992 Posts: 202member
    wonder how this will work on the intl market...
  • Reply 2 of 102
    Great for shows I don't want to own, there are far more of those than shows I want to purchase.I wonder what if any new Movie deals will be made. Mostly though I just want Iapps to run on the Apple TV.
  • Reply 3 of 102
    iguesssoiguessso Posts: 132member
    There must be a huge number of people out there who aren't nearly as cheap as I am.



    So many people complained about Hulu+ at $9.99 a month - that would only buy you ten episodes a month with this plan. Even light TV viewers would need to spend a lot of money to make it through a month at 99 cents/episode.



    As much as I look forward to an iOS based TV gizmo, Apple wouldn't get me to buy shows at that price. I would think they would have to somehow outlaw Hulu and NetFlix to make it work at all.
  • Reply 4 of 102
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iGuessSo View Post


    There must be a huge number of people out there who aren't nearly as cheap as I am.



    So many people complained about Hulu+ at $9.99 a month - that would only buy you ten episodes a month with this plan. Even light TV viewers would need to spend a lot of money to make it through a month at 99 cents/episode.



    As much as I look forward to an iOS based TV gizmo, Apple wouldn't get me to buy shows at that price. I would think they would have to somehow outlaw Hulu and NetFlix to make it work at all.



    I kind of feel the same way. I'm so used to getting shows for free thanks to advertising support, that I kind of reject the idea of paying for the same show just through a different delivery method (especially since you'll have to keep the original delivery method as well, at least for the time being).



    What I would like to see, since it seems the new AppleTV will run iOS, would be the option to either pay your 99c and not have adverts, or get it for free with some sort of iAd content injected.



    From the rumours though, it's starting to sound like the new AppleTV could offer some really interesting developments though.
  • Reply 5 of 102
    99-cents to own, watch whenever I want, as many times as I want, on any of my Apple devices...YES.



    99-cents for a one-time rental...NO WAY!
  • Reply 6 of 102
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    99 cents for a TV show rental?



    Epic fail Apple.



    Go Hulu+ !!
  • Reply 7 of 102
    joe hsjoe hs Posts: 488member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cliffvk View Post


    99-cents to own, watch whenever I want, as many times as I want, on any of my Apple devices...YES.



    99-cents for a one-time rental...NO WAY!



    I second that, however

    $0.99 x 20 = $19.80

    $19.80 = £12.83 does seem rather cheap though at $20/£13 for a 20 episode box set.
  • Reply 8 of 102
    desarcdesarc Posts: 642member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe hs View Post


    I second that, however

    $0.99 x 20 = $19.80

    $19.80 = £12.83 does seem rather cheap though at $20/£13 for a 20 episode box set.



    the difference is that you then OWN the box set, it's not taken away in 24 hours.

    i'm not paying a buck for every episode i want to watch, probably not even if i own it afterwards.



    this will be sold as "if you only watch 5 weekly TV shows, at 4 episodes per month, your "cable bill" will only be $20!"

    works great if you don't want to watch the today show, local and national nightly news, the daily show, or anything similar...
  • Reply 9 of 102
    joelsaltjoelsalt Posts: 827member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe hs View Post


    I second that, however

    $0.99 x 20 = $19.80

    $19.80 = £12.83 does seem rather cheap though at $20/£13 for a 20 episode box set.



    The difference being you would OWN the box set.



    For me, I watch very few shows and cable is expensive here. I could probably get by on 8 dollars or 12 dollars a month and nothing in the summer - which would be WAY cheaper than $40 for cable with 100 channels I have never once watched.
  • Reply 10 of 102
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iGuessSo View Post


    There must be a huge number of people out there who aren't nearly as cheap as I am.



    So many people complained about Hulu+ at $9.99 a month - that would only buy you ten episodes a month with this plan. Even light TV viewers would need to spend a lot of money to make it through a month at 99 cents/episode.



    As much as I look forward to an iOS based TV gizmo, Apple wouldn't get me to buy shows at that price. I would think they would have to somehow outlaw Hulu and NetFlix to make it work at all.



    No one should be looking at these different services as one-size-should-fit-all. Hulu+ would be great if you didn?t want to pay for cable TV, are mostly interested in TV shows and are fine with being tied to the internet to watch them. Netflix is great is you want movies and the option for physical disc. iTunes Store has been great if you pay for cable but occasionally miss a show you need to catch up on and/or want/need to watch it offline.



    So if I miss ?a? TV show paying Apple 99¢ to watch that same show over 10x the price of Hulu+, likely in better quality and without commercials makes sense to me.
  • Reply 11 of 102
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,210member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cliffvk View Post




    99-cents for a one-time rental...NO WAY!



    For me = way. I simply don't watch that many "shows." A couple times a month maybe, and I'm just not into reruns.



    What I'd really like the iTV to do is stream sports live in HD. 720p is just fine. And if the iOS is enabled, this could be done directly by the leagues. Their app could do the streaming, and add the iAds to boot. I'd pay for a stream of a hockey game or a football game...or even some of those isoteric olympic things that come around every 4 years...but it would need to be live, not taped coverage.



    Get that, I cut the cable cord. Want.
  • Reply 12 of 102
    joreljorel Posts: 2member
    I would like to see this as more of a cable alternative and if it ends up being 99 cent rentals than it's not, just another business model and slightly different than the current Apple TV.



    I think most people are looking for cable/satellite alacarte, but that may never happen.
  • Reply 13 of 102
    axualaxual Posts: 244member
    I will pay $30 a month for 30 channels of programming and I get to pick the channels. You can limit that to a maximum of 6 hours of use per day.



    If someone watches 2 hours of programs per day, that's $60 per month based on the .99 cent model. I can get 200 channels 24 hours a day for that much.



    Try harder.
  • Reply 14 of 102
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    I kind of feel the same way. I'm so used to getting shows for free thanks to advertising support, that I kind of reject the idea of paying for the same show just through a different delivery method (especially since you'll have to keep the original delivery method as well, at least for the time being).



    What do you value more, 99¢ or 15 minutes of your time not spent watching adverts per hour of TV.



    Or 5 minutes of your time?



    Or 2 minutes of your time





    And then there is the disruption cause by adverts, getting nicely settled in to the storyline and BOOM - BUY SOME SHITE.





    99¢?



    .
  • Reply 15 of 102
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by axual View Post


    I will pay $30 a month for 30 channels of programming and I get to pick the channels. You can limit that to a maximum of 6 hours of use per day.



    If someone watches 2 hours of programs per day, that's $60 per month based on the .99 cent model. I can get 200 channels 24 hours a day for that much.



    Try harder.



    Then this service isn?t for you. If your intent is to watch copious amounts of TV then you?re best to be connected to a service designed to satisfy that. If you want a service that allows for taking current content off the grid and allowing for an occasional á la carte service then the iTS may fit your needs.



    Seriously people? Why is there this mental block that makes you think it must be everything your cable/sat, and Hulu and Netflix all rolled into one with the added benefit of being cheaper and allowing for local storage on a portable device? THERE IS NO ONE SERVICE THAT WILL EVER BE EVERYTHING TO EVERYONE.
  • Reply 16 of 102
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Beauty of Bath View Post


    What do you value more, 99¢ or 15 minutes of your time not spent watching adverts per hour of TV.



    Or 5 minutes of your time?



    Or 2 minutes of your time





    And then there is the disruption cause by adverts, getting nicely settled in to the storyline and BOOM - BUY SOME SHITE.





    99¢?



    .



    That will become a part of it for sure, and how much you value your time will change based on this. It's interesting that you say there are 15 minutes of advertising per hour, and that's true, though in practice I watch pretty much everything on the DVR, so I screen through all of the adverts, so it takes very little of my time.



    By creating a system where you have no choice to screen through the adverts, there should actually be the need for less adverts per hour of shows, since the advertisers will likely pay more for an advert they know someone will have to look at.



    Plus, the amount people value their time will differ from person to person. Personally, I don't put any dollar value on my time when I'm away from work, but can see how some people do.
  • Reply 17 of 102
    grkinggrking Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    No one should be looking at these different services as one-size-should-fit-all. Hulu+ would be great if you didn?t want to pay for cable TV, are mostly interested in TV shows and are fine with being tied to the internet to watch them. Netflix is great is you want movies and the option for physical disc. iTunes Store has been great if you pay for cable but occasionally miss a show you need to catch up on and/or want/need to watch it offline.



    So if I miss ?a? TV show paying Apple 99¢ to watch that same show over 10x the price of Hulu+, likely in better quality and without commercials makes sense to me.





    You nailed it perfectly. This is not initially a cable replacement, as most people would spend way more money and the uncertainty of their monthly TV bill. Most people like to be able to predict regular costs such as cable, which is one reason pay per view won't replace subscription plans.



    iTV does look to be designed to let people watch an episode they missed.



    If Apple ever manages to get subscriptions going, that might be a different issue depending on the content they line up.
  • Reply 18 of 102
    kent909kent909 Posts: 695member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by axual View Post


    I will pay $30 a month for 30 channels of programming and I get to pick the channels. You can limit that to a maximum of 6 hours of use per day.



    If someone watches 2 hours of programs per day, that's $60 per month based on the .99 cent model. I can get 200 channels 24 hours a day for that much.



    Try harder.



    Question is: Can you watch 200 channels at a time and never sleep?
  • Reply 19 of 102
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grking View Post


    You nailed it perfectly. This is not initially a cable replacement, as most people would spend way more money and the uncertainty of their monthly TV bill. Most people like to be able to predict regular costs such as cable, which is one reason pay per view won't replace subscription plans.



    iTV does look to be designed to let people watch an episode they missed.



    If Apple ever manages to get subscriptions going, that might be a different issue depending on the content they line up.



    I agree, though I do think something will need to come along at some point to allow the majority of people to get rid of their cable service.



    The problem I see with this is the cable companies could reasonably easily increase the amount of on demand content they have (last time I looked on Comcast I was actually amazed by how much they had added) and just counter the need for pretty much anyone to have an Apple TV.



    If Apple could find a way that a lot of people would no longer need cable TV, that would be a real breakthrough.
  • Reply 20 of 102
    kent909kent909 Posts: 695member
    This plan is getting closer to what I am looking for. Based on what I pay for cable I could watch 22 shows a week. That is far more than I do. Looks like I will be saving some money soon.
Sign In or Register to comment.