Exactly. Right now I get free Over THe Air in HD - better PQ than cable. Then, all I want is the Discover family of networks. It takes a $60 package just for that - so I forego it and DL the shows from TPB. Give me those networks for $20 over AppleTV and I'll pay. Otherwise.. forget it.
So give me it free/cheap or I'll steal it. Interesting logic - does this apply to your grocery shopping too?
Futurama, I would buy. Mad Men, rent. Now here's the quandary. My satellite TV already gives me episodes and movies, eg. FX HD, HBO HD, etc. But they're not the current seasons. And I'm outside the US. Do the studios not care about the direct-to-consumer model? Is this iTV hype going to be, as usual, US-only with crippled offerings in the UK, etc...?
I mean, if they are nervous about 99c rentals, boy, do they have no clue what happens on p*bay. Or they're just too worried to think about it.
Granted my satellite TV company (which is paid for) pays the big bucks for US and international (mostly US for English media, as you can imagine) TV shows and movies.
But even then... Think about how Internet streaming already will cut out the middleman, and imagine if the satellite TV companies did not need to manage all that infrastructure (transmission and reception stations, satellites, etc...) ~ I think the content creators are scared of pissing off the content distributors because the distributors in various countries have been their long term customers, not the viewer of the shows.
Like Steve said, studios need to ask, Who is My Customer? Is it my satellite TV company? Or ME? Why the international restrictions? Censorship is certainly a problem (Everything stronger than PG-13 is censored down to that level in Malaysia, and varies on countries across Asia, not sure about the Middle East...).
Where I am now has a developing economy with less than 30 million people. So maybe it's not too important... But let's take Europe, China, India, even the UK, surely these are huge chunks of direct-to-consumer markets with huge potential, and, also, countries which are the biggest file-sharers/pirates when it comes to TV shows and movies*
*On the topic of piracy... It's really confusing. Is it piracy if sometime later in the month my legal satellite/ cable tv station will air the episode (remember the huge delays, this is outside the US)? Is it not piracy if I VPN into the US IP addresses to watch Hulu and whatever, bypassing the geolocation? It's not piracy because I watch ads?
Then, I say, why don't the studios bundle the ads (smart, quick ones) into all their latest shows, for free-to-air TV or whatever, and then just seed that into the torrents? Imagine if HD 1080p and SD 480p official torrents with ads included are seeded on the torrent networks. People could skip through the ads, or they might watch them, in any case no different from TiVO, etc. Most high-level-seeders would not take the trouble to strip out the ads and reseed them because they'd have to fool around with the file formatting and in some cases lose quality with reformatting.
Movies, well, that's slightly different, but is a conundrum by itself. Because tons are being pirated, and so many movies are absolute shite nowadays. I mean, take "Salt". I was like, WHAT THE F**K IS THIS?????!!!??? Glad I didn't pay for the movie. I would have demanded my money back. Brand me a pirate, stealer, criminal. I tell you what's criminal, actually dreaming up that garbage plot.
Steve Jobs should personally sit all the major execs down at a conference table, and fire up some torrents. Then start to really talk about global, on-demand, streaming/downloaded NO DELAY, NO INTERNATIONAL RESTRICTION distribution of TV shows. You want money? Bundle the ads deep into the files. You want more money? Make these shows iAd like if watching through iTunes. Now, do the same for movies, except maybe no normal ads but just really engaging iAds for movies.
People argue to this day how effective iTunes Store for music is. But look at NO DELAY, GLOBAL availability of apps. Sure, people still pirate, but the only way to beat piracy is to offer reasonably priced media or just run it free with ads, people can pay for ad-free versions.
There is a lot of rethinking that needs to be done. Sure, I question my conscience from time to time, but where I am, to pay $0.99 USD per episode is really quite a lot, that's going to be five times my satellite TV bill, for just a single season of a tv series, and the single satellite TV payment is for my whole family..! For at least 20 US-content channels!
This will be an interesting experiment for Apple with video downloads to see what people will pay for. I am sure that Apple has done its research on this. The 99 cent model would seem like a good one, if true. Most people don't mind spending a buck on something to try it out. And if Apple is correct and most people don't want to watch their shows multiple times(like they listen to their purchased music), a cheaper rental model should be a good one.
I am sure that there will be some, especially those that do not have cable or satellite TV, that will pay for this type of service and use it a lot. I am also certain that there will be some that will not use it at all. I think I will fall into the occasional user category if the shows that I like to watch are available and I missed a show that I really wanted to see. In the end, it will depend on the number and proportion of the users in the previous categories.
Just hypothesizing here, it may be that those of us that grew up with free network TV may be a bit more resistant to paying for this type of content. But maybe a younger crowd might like this, having something instantly available when they want to watch something. And for them, 99 cents for an hours or so worth of entertainment might be/seem like a good deal.
But then we are all guessing on this. We will see what really is announced at 1 pm eastern
You obviously have no respect for the content creators, or the work of those who bring the film/tv show to your screen. Remove the advertising revenue and it's necessary for these companies to charge for their work in order to pay their staff and invest in new programming.
Why on EARTH should network shows be free - do you give away your work free of charge?
What a selfish, cheap argument. 99 cents too expensive for 45 - 50 minutes entertainment for you? Here's hoping that no one thinks that whatever you do for a living is worthless, or you'd soon be out of a job. 99c IS a very small fee. This is an alternative, a cheap alternative - a series of 12 episodes for less than $12. That's inexpensive. Or you can download illegal content, cost the producers yet more loss of revenue and ensure these price points never reduce. Well done you.
And lets not forget the production cost of those shows. Look at CSI Miami. That show cost tons of money to produce. Hell, the ones bit**** about 99 cents are pathetic!
This isn't really for full time watching as costs adds up and becomes even more expensive than cable or satellite.. It's good and meant for catching up on show episodes you miss especially if you're a busy person and that makes the $0.99 a reasonable price.
Exactly. Right now I get free Over THe Air in HD - better PQ than cable. Then, all I want is the Discover family of networks. It takes a $60 package just for that - so I forego it and DL the shows from TPB. Give me those networks for $20 over AppleTV and I'll pay. Otherwise.. forget it.
I really don't understand when people insist over-the-air is "free". Sure it's costs you nothing if you are willing to sit through commercials and if (this is the one you are all forgetting) you are available to watch the show when it's on and you won't be interrupted while it's airing. You complain about the $99 price of the rumored new AppleTV, but how much is the cheapest TiVo if you want to record that live broadcast so you can watch it another time or fast forward through commercials? I believe it's $300 + monthly subscription (around $15/month). That's a lot of 99 cent rentals!
My stupid Comcast DVR sometimes forgets to record a show it's programmed to record, or a friend will mention a show they watched last night that I might have wished I had watched or recorded, but didn't. Right now I'll usually try to find it on Hulu because $1.99/2.99 is an absurd price when 99% of the time I'm only going to watch the show once. But 99 cents puts it within consideration.
The other scenario is if it allows me to not eliminate cable but drop to a lower tier of programming. Most series have maybe 15 new shows a year. So if renting 4 shows ($60/year) allows me to save $10-15/month on my cable bill, that's a good deal. The only problem with this is it requires the cable network's shows to be available as those are the ones your cable company uses to force you to upgrade your programming (USA, BBCA, TBS, SyFy, etc).
I can see renting tv shows...as I rarely watch them more than once....not sure if .99 is the sweet spot. If the itv is ios based, wouldn't iads be better?
rent a TV show? for 99 cents? i thought you could buy episodes to watch forever for $1.99. isn't this even more of a rip off?
Not to me, I prefer a 50% price cut for a watch once option. I dont need to rewatch them, but even if I do I can still rent them again and it will be the same price has if I bought them. Not gonna watch a show more than twice. Maybe cartoons could be bough since kids tend to watch the same things over and over again.
This isn't really for full time watching as costs adds up and becomes even more expensive than cable or satellite.. It's good and meant for catching up on show episodes you miss especially if you're a busy person and that makes the $0.99 a reasonable price.
This is the way I view it too (also, I hate cluttering my iTunes with too many TV shows.... already they're taking up to much space. But perhaps Apple will allow one to convert a 'rent' to a 'buy' for an additional $0.99 if one decides that a particular episode is a keeper).
99c TV show rentals is a good step. But it's a long journey to global, no-delay accessibility to the latest content. It's still a huge amount when you're talking about a whole season though.
Give me Mad Men Seasons 1, 2 and 3 on iTunes Store rental for $19 and I'm there. Am I being too demanding? $19 for reruns! Is that too much to ask?
On that note, even in the US iTunes Store, what is up with not all movies available for rental? What do the studios gain by trying to sell them only instead of renting? I mean, some movies you just want to watch to see, oh, what was that about. But I ain't watching some of that again, and they need to drop most rentals to $2.99 or even $1.99.
That said, at least an increasing number of new-to-DVD titles are ready for rental. Just paid $3.99 for Repo Men (I know, I hear it's a crap movie, wanted to check it out anyway). Because I can't be bothered finding and downloading the DVD-rip (doesn't seem to be seeded anyway) on P*Bay.
I don't understand this strategy... ABC already gives away its stuff for free on the ABC player, and virtually everything on FOX (for the last 20 years) is available on Hulu Plus, which is $9.95 a month - 10 rentals in a month, and you're losing out.
TV rentals is the worst idea Apple has come up with since the Pippin.
99c TV show rentals is a good step. But it's a long journey to global, no-delay accessibility to the latest content. It's still a huge amount when you're talking about a whole season though.
Give me Mad Men Seasons 1, 2 and 3 on iTunes Store rental for $19 and I'm there. Am I being too demanding? $19 for reruns! Is that too much to ask?
On that note, even in the US iTunes Store, what is up with not all movies available for rental? What do the studios gain by trying to sell them only instead of renting? I mean, some movies you just want to watch to see, oh, what was that about. But I ain't watching some of that again, and they need to drop most rentals to $2.99 or even $1.99.
That said, at least an increasing number of new-to-DVD titles are ready for rental. Just paid $3.99 for Repo Men (I know, I hear it's a crap movie, wanted to check it out anyway). Because I can't be bothered finding and downloading the DVD-rip (doesn't seem to be seeded anyway) on P*Bay.
There is still over Apple doing to video what it did to music (even though it made the digital downloads a viable business for music) and a fear over digital in general, even though it?s much easier to rip from a PVR or optical disc.
So.. is $19 feasible for Mad Men. In, say Blockbuster, how much would it be to rent an entire season of this show on 480p DVD? Isn?t in 3 to 4 episodes per disc for a 40-44 minute TV show?
Excluding the aforementioned fears, is the ability to keep these downloads for a presumed 30 days and play for 48 hours after first starting it not a benefit for the users? What about the ability to move from devices easily and take with you in ways that streaming services and physical media can?t? Surely these attributes appeal differently to different consumers but I think those traits would be considered in the pricing model for this service.
I don't understand this strategy... ABC already gives away its stuff for free on the ABC player, and virtually everything on FOX (for the last 20 years) is available on Hulu Plus, which is $9.95 a month - 10 rentals in a month, and you're losing out.
TV rentals is the worst idea Apple has come up with since the Pippin.
Why would copying what the others are doing be better for Apple than using their strengths to offer services that the others can not?
I will have to wait and see what is announced, and if I will need a new AppleTV to take advantage of it. I think the rumored NetFlix deal is a step in the right direction, if it comes to pass. The rentals from Apple could work for some people, at least those without kids.
The main thing missing from most of the internet TV right now is filling the void of casual TV viewing and live content such as news and sports.
Comments
I'm getting the feeling this will be US exclusive, or at least only cheap in the US
unless it has safari or a BBC iPlayer app- in that case count me in!
This is rumoured to run iOS, in which case iPlayer is there.
Exactly. Right now I get free Over THe Air in HD - better PQ than cable. Then, all I want is the Discover family of networks. It takes a $60 package just for that - so I forego it and DL the shows from TPB. Give me those networks for $20 over AppleTV and I'll pay. Otherwise.. forget it.
So give me it free/cheap or I'll steal it. Interesting logic - does this apply to your grocery shopping too?
Good I hope he wins. I hate the BBC.
I also see BBC as very unbalanced.
But tax payers owns BBC, and R. M. is on his own way, he may be on your side today, tho.
But ?
I mean, if they are nervous about 99c rentals, boy, do they have no clue what happens on p*bay. Or they're just too worried to think about it.
Granted my satellite TV company (which is paid for) pays the big bucks for US and international (mostly US for English media, as you can imagine) TV shows and movies.
But even then... Think about how Internet streaming already will cut out the middleman, and imagine if the satellite TV companies did not need to manage all that infrastructure (transmission and reception stations, satellites, etc...) ~ I think the content creators are scared of pissing off the content distributors because the distributors in various countries have been their long term customers, not the viewer of the shows.
Like Steve said, studios need to ask, Who is My Customer? Is it my satellite TV company? Or ME? Why the international restrictions? Censorship is certainly a problem (Everything stronger than PG-13 is censored down to that level in Malaysia, and varies on countries across Asia, not sure about the Middle East...).
Where I am now has a developing economy with less than 30 million people. So maybe it's not too important... But let's take Europe, China, India, even the UK, surely these are huge chunks of direct-to-consumer markets with huge potential, and, also, countries which are the biggest file-sharers/pirates when it comes to TV shows and movies*
*On the topic of piracy... It's really confusing. Is it piracy if sometime later in the month my legal satellite/ cable tv station will air the episode (remember the huge delays, this is outside the US)? Is it not piracy if I VPN into the US IP addresses to watch Hulu and whatever, bypassing the geolocation? It's not piracy because I watch ads?
Then, I say, why don't the studios bundle the ads (smart, quick ones) into all their latest shows, for free-to-air TV or whatever, and then just seed that into the torrents? Imagine if HD 1080p and SD 480p official torrents with ads included are seeded on the torrent networks. People could skip through the ads, or they might watch them, in any case no different from TiVO, etc. Most high-level-seeders would not take the trouble to strip out the ads and reseed them because they'd have to fool around with the file formatting and in some cases lose quality with reformatting.
Movies, well, that's slightly different, but is a conundrum by itself. Because tons are being pirated, and so many movies are absolute shite nowadays. I mean, take "Salt". I was like, WHAT THE F**K IS THIS?????!!!??? Glad I didn't pay for the movie. I would have demanded my money back. Brand me a pirate, stealer, criminal. I tell you what's criminal, actually dreaming up that garbage plot.
Steve Jobs should personally sit all the major execs down at a conference table, and fire up some torrents. Then start to really talk about global, on-demand, streaming/downloaded NO DELAY, NO INTERNATIONAL RESTRICTION distribution of TV shows. You want money? Bundle the ads deep into the files. You want more money? Make these shows iAd like if watching through iTunes. Now, do the same for movies, except maybe no normal ads but just really engaging iAds for movies.
People argue to this day how effective iTunes Store for music is. But look at NO DELAY, GLOBAL availability of apps. Sure, people still pirate, but the only way to beat piracy is to offer reasonably priced media or just run it free with ads, people can pay for ad-free versions.
There is a lot of rethinking that needs to be done. Sure, I question my conscience from time to time, but where I am, to pay $0.99 USD per episode is really quite a lot, that's going to be five times my satellite TV bill, for just a single season of a tv series, and the single satellite TV payment is for my whole family..! For at least 20 US-content channels!
I am sure that there will be some, especially those that do not have cable or satellite TV, that will pay for this type of service and use it a lot. I am also certain that there will be some that will not use it at all. I think I will fall into the occasional user category if the shows that I like to watch are available and I missed a show that I really wanted to see. In the end, it will depend on the number and proportion of the users in the previous categories.
Just hypothesizing here, it may be that those of us that grew up with free network TV may be a bit more resistant to paying for this type of content. But maybe a younger crowd might like this, having something instantly available when they want to watch something. And for them, 99 cents for an hours or so worth of entertainment might be/seem like a good deal.
But then we are all guessing on this. We will see what really is announced at 1 pm eastern
Neal
So give me it free/cheap or I'll steal it. Interesting logic - does this apply to your grocery shopping too?
You obviously have no respect for the content creators, or the work of those who bring the film/tv show to your screen. Remove the advertising revenue and it's necessary for these companies to charge for their work in order to pay their staff and invest in new programming.
Why on EARTH should network shows be free - do you give away your work free of charge?
What a selfish, cheap argument. 99 cents too expensive for 45 - 50 minutes entertainment for you? Here's hoping that no one thinks that whatever you do for a living is worthless, or you'd soon be out of a job. 99c IS a very small fee. This is an alternative, a cheap alternative - a series of 12 episodes for less than $12. That's inexpensive. Or you can download illegal content, cost the producers yet more loss of revenue and ensure these price points never reduce. Well done you.
And lets not forget the production cost of those shows. Look at CSI Miami. That show cost tons of money to produce. Hell, the ones bit**** about 99 cents are pathetic!
Exactly. Right now I get free Over THe Air in HD - better PQ than cable. Then, all I want is the Discover family of networks. It takes a $60 package just for that - so I forego it and DL the shows from TPB. Give me those networks for $20 over AppleTV and I'll pay. Otherwise.. forget it.
I really don't understand when people insist over-the-air is "free". Sure it's costs you nothing if you are willing to sit through commercials and if (this is the one you are all forgetting) you are available to watch the show when it's on and you won't be interrupted while it's airing. You complain about the $99 price of the rumored new AppleTV, but how much is the cheapest TiVo if you want to record that live broadcast so you can watch it another time or fast forward through commercials? I believe it's $300 + monthly subscription (around $15/month). That's a lot of 99 cent rentals!
My stupid Comcast DVR sometimes forgets to record a show it's programmed to record, or a friend will mention a show they watched last night that I might have wished I had watched or recorded, but didn't. Right now I'll usually try to find it on Hulu because $1.99/2.99 is an absurd price when 99% of the time I'm only going to watch the show once. But 99 cents puts it within consideration.
The other scenario is if it allows me to not eliminate cable but drop to a lower tier of programming. Most series have maybe 15 new shows a year. So if renting 4 shows ($60/year) allows me to save $10-15/month on my cable bill, that's a good deal. The only problem with this is it requires the cable network's shows to be available as those are the ones your cable company uses to force you to upgrade your programming (USA, BBCA, TBS, SyFy, etc).
rent a TV show? for 99 cents? i thought you could buy episodes to watch forever for $1.99. isn't this even more of a rip off?
Not to me, I prefer a 50% price cut for a watch once option. I dont need to rewatch them, but even if I do I can still rent them again and it will be the same price has if I bought them. Not gonna watch a show more than twice. Maybe cartoons could be bough since kids tend to watch the same things over and over again.
This isn't really for full time watching as costs adds up and becomes even more expensive than cable or satellite.. It's good and meant for catching up on show episodes you miss especially if you're a busy person and that makes the $0.99 a reasonable price.
This is the way I view it too (also, I hate cluttering my iTunes with too many TV shows.... already they're taking up to much space. But perhaps Apple will allow one to convert a 'rent' to a 'buy' for an additional $0.99 if one decides that a particular episode is a keeper).
these are network television that you get for FREE over the air with BETTER HD QUALITY than streaming OR cable.
I have yet to see an OTA Disney broadcast.
Give me Mad Men Seasons 1, 2 and 3 on iTunes Store rental for $19 and I'm there. Am I being too demanding? $19 for reruns! Is that too much to ask?
On that note, even in the US iTunes Store, what is up with not all movies available for rental? What do the studios gain by trying to sell them only instead of renting? I mean, some movies you just want to watch to see, oh, what was that about. But I ain't watching some of that again, and they need to drop most rentals to $2.99 or even $1.99.
That said, at least an increasing number of new-to-DVD titles are ready for rental. Just paid $3.99 for Repo Men (I know, I hear it's a crap movie, wanted to check it out anyway). Because I can't be bothered finding and downloading the DVD-rip (doesn't seem to be seeded anyway) on P*Bay.
TV rentals is the worst idea Apple has come up with since the Pippin.
99c TV show rentals is a good step. But it's a long journey to global, no-delay accessibility to the latest content. It's still a huge amount when you're talking about a whole season though.
Give me Mad Men Seasons 1, 2 and 3 on iTunes Store rental for $19 and I'm there. Am I being too demanding? $19 for reruns! Is that too much to ask?
On that note, even in the US iTunes Store, what is up with not all movies available for rental? What do the studios gain by trying to sell them only instead of renting? I mean, some movies you just want to watch to see, oh, what was that about. But I ain't watching some of that again, and they need to drop most rentals to $2.99 or even $1.99.
That said, at least an increasing number of new-to-DVD titles are ready for rental. Just paid $3.99 for Repo Men (I know, I hear it's a crap movie, wanted to check it out anyway). Because I can't be bothered finding and downloading the DVD-rip (doesn't seem to be seeded anyway) on P*Bay.
There is still over Apple doing to video what it did to music (even though it made the digital downloads a viable business for music) and a fear over digital in general, even though it?s much easier to rip from a PVR or optical disc.
So.. is $19 feasible for Mad Men. In, say Blockbuster, how much would it be to rent an entire season of this show on 480p DVD? Isn?t in 3 to 4 episodes per disc for a 40-44 minute TV show?
Excluding the aforementioned fears, is the ability to keep these downloads for a presumed 30 days and play for 48 hours after first starting it not a benefit for the users? What about the ability to move from devices easily and take with you in ways that streaming services and physical media can?t? Surely these attributes appeal differently to different consumers but I think those traits would be considered in the pricing model for this service.
I don't understand this strategy... ABC already gives away its stuff for free on the ABC player, and virtually everything on FOX (for the last 20 years) is available on Hulu Plus, which is $9.95 a month - 10 rentals in a month, and you're losing out.
TV rentals is the worst idea Apple has come up with since the Pippin.
Why would copying what the others are doing be better for Apple than using their strengths to offer services that the others can not?
The main thing missing from most of the internet TV right now is filling the void of casual TV viewing and live content such as news and sports.