Did you miss the second sentence of my post? Perhaps you should take the trouble to read a little more carefully.
You mean the sentence where you posit an alternate universe where amazon and apple both sell episodes to own. Yes I read it, but changing the conditions of the topic to a hypothetical, and then using that hypothetical to proclaim apple's superiority is unproductive.
It's even better than that: your shows are stored in the cloud!
At this point in time, I don't think we ever own anything that's coming from the cloud. That may be the theory, but if the service gets closed down, as has happened elsewhere, we may lose what we thought we had.
I'd like to clarify something here. I didn't read Amazon's press release, so I don't have their exact wording. But, if they say that you're buying these Tv shows, they're skirting with the truth. Unless you can take the show with you physically, on your own storage, you don't own them. What Amazon is offering is the ability to download them whenever you want, as often as you want. But that's not ownership. Ownership would be more like; as long as they're in business with this, unless they state specifically what would happen if they drop the service, meaning that some other entity would continue to allow you to download, and pass the ability along to your heirs, or anyone else that you would want to give them to.
Really? I can own an SD or HD H.264/MP3 encoded TV show for 99¢ the day after it airs?
No, not really. Indeed, I have no clue (nor does any one else).
All I said was - obviously I did not say it very well - that if Amazon was (legitimately) doing this and had such a deal with ABC and Fox, Apple could/would too. As simple as that.
You mean the sentence where you posit an alternate universe where amazon and apple both sell episodes to own. Yes I read it, but changing the conditions of the topic to a hypothetical, and then using that hypothetical to proclaim apple's superiority is unproductive.
If anything is unproductive in these pages, it is quite often you.
I am surprised that Apple seemed to have such a "hard time" with this, and Amazon throws it out there like it was no effort at all... And how is Amazon able to do purchases for .99 and Apple can't? Is it because iTunes can be used on iDevices? Why is that such a problem for these studios/networks????
Who do you think negotiated the price down to $0.99 in the first place?
It's even better than that: your shows are stored in the cloud!
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
At this point in time, I don't think we ever own anything that's coming from the cloud. That may be the theory, but if the service gets closed down, as has happened elsewhere, we may lose what we thought we had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I'd like to clarify something here. I didn't read Amazon's press release, so I don't have their exact wording. But, if they say that you're buying these Tv shows, they're skirting with the truth. Unless you can take the show with you physically, on your own storage, you don't own them. What Amazon is offering is the ability to download them whenever you want, as often as you want. But that's not ownership. Ownership would be more like; as long as they're in business with this, unless they state specifically what would happen if they drop the service, meaning that some other entity would continue to allow you to download, and pass the ability along to your heirs, or anyone else that you would want to give them to.
So I'm skeptical about this ownership thing.
Good thing I read the rest of the posts before replying, you saved me the time to compose. I was about to make exactly the same points.
What they're offering is more like a perpetual subscription, kinda-sorta.
Business services are shut down all the time. Who was it (Microsoft?) that shut down some service a while back and basically killed everyone's "purchased" data.
This kind of service is not even remotely of interest to me. If I'm not in possession of the data, I don't own it, nor do I have any guarantee of ongoing use.
I'd like to clarify something here. I didn't read Amazon's press release, so I don't have their exact wording. But, if they say that you're buying these Tv shows, they're skirting with the truth. Unless you can take the show with you physically, on your own storage, you don't own them. What Amazon is offering is the ability to download them whenever you want, as often as you want. But that's not ownership. Ownership would be more like; as long as they're in business with this, unless they state specifically what would happen if they drop the service, meaning that some other entity would continue to allow you to download, and pass the ability along to your heirs, or anyone else that you would want to give them to.
So I'm skeptical about this ownership thing.
I have some videos Amazon gave me for buying DVDs or something like that. I can download a copy to my physical storage, but then I'd have to watch them on a PC or Tivo.
I've ALWAYS found Amazon to be a clunky interface (the store) and the video stuff is more of the same. The best interface thing I've seen from Amazon is its ability to drop purchased songs into iTunes.
This is from the interface of a video they gave me....
...This kind of service is not even remotely of interest to me. If I'm not in possession of the data, I don't own it, nor do I have any guarantee of ongoing use.
You could actually say the same about iTunes video until they remove the DRM. Look at how many people got burnt when Plays For Sure turned on them. Remember when Walmart shut off their music authentication servers??
It seems to me that Amazon is playing the same game here that they play with books and mp3s.
They're willing to lose money on every sale to get marketshare. I don't see how the networks would give Amazon a better deal than they give Apple, esp. ABC.
Amazon wants to be a power in the download anything market, and now they're big enough to throw away a lot of money to do so.
I don't think they are loosing money, but making less money? They probably are.
Otherwise, company loosing money on pretty much everything they sell would not be with us for too long.
I have some videos Amazon gave me for buying DVDs or something like that. I can download a copy to my physical storage, but then I'd have to watch them on a PC or Tivo.
I've ALWAYS found Amazon to be a clunky interface (the store) and the video stuff is more of the same. The best interface thing I've seen from Amazon is its ability to drop purchased songs into iTunes.
This is from the interface of a video they gave me....
In the past couple of years or so, a number of companies have been giving a copy of the movie on the DVD that was compatible with the iPhone. so Amazon didn't begin that notion.
Yeah, it's clumsy, but at least it's another source.
I'm just wary about being told that you will own this, but we will keep the copy, not you.
I don't think they are loosing money, but making less money? They probably are.
Otherwise, company loosing money on pretty much everything they sell would not be with us for too long.
They were willing to lose as much as $5 per book they sold. They were paying the publishers 50% of the list price, which was up to $30. They were then selling those books for $9.99. While I was always suspicious that they would either raise the price someday, or go back to the publishers and demand that they pay far less, once they had established a monopoly in e-book sales, as they were trying to do with this tactic, there was no indication when either of those concepts would happen. Meanwhile they were blithly losing from $1 to $5 every time they sold a book, plus the transaction costs.
Apple is estimated to be making 5 to 6 cents profit per song at a sale price of 99 cents. Amazon has been selling them for 89 cents. That would be about 5 cents below Apple's costs. And Apple sells over ten tines as many songs, so their cost per song is much less. Amazon must be losing money there as well.
Same thing for these Tv shows. Apple will again be making pennies on these rentals. Making an assumption that each download costs the same, after the first download by Amazon, it's going to cost them the same as the first time. The more times someone downloads a show, the more Amazon is in the hole for it. There's no way out for them. It's impossible that the companies gave them a better deal, as they think that 99 cents for a one time rental is already too little. So Amazon must be paying them everytime someone downloads it again.
Amazon, like Apple has risen quickly. Their sales are very large now, and they've been making good profits. They are taking the low road to marketshare. Like MS, they're using their profits in other areas to finance losses in these areas they think are so important to their future. They must believe that at the end of the day they will be able to squeeze money out of it. I'm sure they have a secret plan for that. But if they can't manage to corral the majority of the market, that plan can't be enacted.
It's tough for them as Apple is not seeing media sales as a way to large profits. They see it as a way to sell the hardware that IS the way to large profits. So they can't undersell and still eck a small profit out of it. They are taking losses. But Apple went around them in the book market, and forced the prices up to the point where everyone will make money on it for the long term, including Amazon.
HELLOOO? Who cares? These shows are for FREE on broadcast HDTV with HIGHER QUALITY.
If you rent/buy five episodes a month a DVR monthly cost is worth it.
If you aren't a numbskull, you can just hook up a small computer with a tuner card and have this functionality for FREE.
This would be impressive if it wasn't BASIC FREE BROADCAST PROGRAMMING! ! ! !
Uh, most of us get cable because what the over the air broadcasters offer is often trivial, and doesn't cover much. I pay over $90 a month, and I know many people who pay more. Even basic these days isn't cheap. Some people will do much better with this than continuing to pay their cable bill. And others who can afford it will have both, for the convenience.
People aren't numbskulls for not doing what you think they should.
Uh, most of us get cable because what the over the air broadcasters offer is often trivial, and doesn't cover much. I pay over $90 a month, and I know many people who pay more. Even basic these days isn't cheap. Some people will do much better with this than continuing to pay their cable bill. And others who can afford it will have both, for the convenience.
People aren't numbskulls for not doing what you think they should.
"FOX and ABC shows"
That's NOT Cable!!!! If they had episodes of CABLE shows I would be impressed!!
Okay, maybe I'm overreacting here, maybe for some people 99 cents isn't much of a price to pay for the convenience of seeing a show on your schedule. But it's not even a purchase, it's a rental!! With the internet TV services now maturing, why can't I just watch a free show with the commercials whenever I want to? Isn't that what the networks want us to do? Watch their shows with ads? That's how traditional TV works...why do we now have to pay for IPTV?
Anyway you, for example, if you're paying over $90/month, I bet you have a DVR. And like I said, for the cost of 5 of these stupid rentals, you can pay a monthly fee for a DVR, which allows you to keep your episodes as long as you want.
Furthermore, these rentals don't even have the correct kind of proportions. They cost half the price of the full episode to own. If you rent a movie on iTunes, it costs less than 1/3 of the price to own the DVD or Blu-Ray. $3-4 gets you an SD rental ($10-15 DVD), and $4-5 gets you HD ($15-25 Blu-ray). So why are TV episodes a full half of the price of what Apple charged for ownership?
The average American watches 4 hours of TV a day. If you rent all your TV like this, you will pay $120/month for TV, assuming you only watch 1 hour episodes. That's $240/month if you watch all 30 minute episodes. Sure, you don't have commercials, but you could buy a brand new car for that much money.
As an example, you can buy the Glee season 1 DVD for $1.60 an episode, and own them forever. It probably has some sort of special features too.
One last thing: do we know if these rentals have closed captioning? I'm not seeing it on Apple's TV page.
Comments
Did you miss the second sentence of my post? Perhaps you should take the trouble to read a little more carefully.
You mean the sentence where you posit an alternate universe where amazon and apple both sell episodes to own. Yes I read it, but changing the conditions of the topic to a hypothetical, and then using that hypothetical to proclaim apple's superiority is unproductive.
with amazon you still need some kind of hardware to deliver the shows to the TV.
With Apples solution you need some kind of hardware to deliver the shows to the TV as well
It's even better than that: your shows are stored in the cloud!
At this point in time, I don't think we ever own anything that's coming from the cloud. That may be the theory, but if the service gets closed down, as has happened elsewhere, we may lose what we thought we had.
So I'm skeptical about this ownership thing.
Really? I can own an SD or HD H.264/MP3 encoded TV show for 99¢ the day after it airs?
No, not really. Indeed, I have no clue (nor does any one else).
All I said was - obviously I did not say it very well - that if Amazon was (legitimately) doing this and had such a deal with ABC and Fox, Apple could/would too. As simple as that.
I'm still waiting for the "all you can eat" subscription model. Any song, movie, or TV show, on-demand - all the time.
The closest we have to that is cable. Although, on-demand costs much more, on an a la carte basis.
You mean the sentence where you posit an alternate universe where amazon and apple both sell episodes to own. Yes I read it, but changing the conditions of the topic to a hypothetical, and then using that hypothetical to proclaim apple's superiority is unproductive.
If anything is unproductive in these pages, it is quite often you.
Time will tell.
You had me then you lost me.
Because the current president is very much against a capitalist system.
(and before everyone gets bent out of shape, please follow the posts)
First one by Prof Peabody -> http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...25#post1706225
I am surprised that Apple seemed to have such a "hard time" with this, and Amazon throws it out there like it was no effort at all... And how is Amazon able to do purchases for .99 and Apple can't? Is it because iTunes can be used on iDevices? Why is that such a problem for these studios/networks????
Who do you think negotiated the price down to $0.99 in the first place?
It's even better than that: your shows are stored in the cloud!
At this point in time, I don't think we ever own anything that's coming from the cloud. That may be the theory, but if the service gets closed down, as has happened elsewhere, we may lose what we thought we had.
I'd like to clarify something here. I didn't read Amazon's press release, so I don't have their exact wording. But, if they say that you're buying these Tv shows, they're skirting with the truth. Unless you can take the show with you physically, on your own storage, you don't own them. What Amazon is offering is the ability to download them whenever you want, as often as you want. But that's not ownership. Ownership would be more like; as long as they're in business with this, unless they state specifically what would happen if they drop the service, meaning that some other entity would continue to allow you to download, and pass the ability along to your heirs, or anyone else that you would want to give them to.
So I'm skeptical about this ownership thing.
Good thing I read the rest of the posts before replying, you saved me the time to compose. I was about to make exactly the same points.
What they're offering is more like a perpetual subscription, kinda-sorta.
Business services are shut down all the time. Who was it (Microsoft?) that shut down some service a while back and basically killed everyone's "purchased" data.
This kind of service is not even remotely of interest to me. If I'm not in possession of the data, I don't own it, nor do I have any guarantee of ongoing use.
I'd like to clarify something here. I didn't read Amazon's press release, so I don't have their exact wording. But, if they say that you're buying these Tv shows, they're skirting with the truth. Unless you can take the show with you physically, on your own storage, you don't own them. What Amazon is offering is the ability to download them whenever you want, as often as you want. But that's not ownership. Ownership would be more like; as long as they're in business with this, unless they state specifically what would happen if they drop the service, meaning that some other entity would continue to allow you to download, and pass the ability along to your heirs, or anyone else that you would want to give them to.
So I'm skeptical about this ownership thing.
I have some videos Amazon gave me for buying DVDs or something like that. I can download a copy to my physical storage, but then I'd have to watch them on a PC or Tivo.
I've ALWAYS found Amazon to be a clunky interface (the store) and the video stuff is more of the same. The best interface thing I've seen from Amazon is its ability to drop purchased songs into iTunes.
This is from the interface of a video they gave me....
...This kind of service is not even remotely of interest to me. If I'm not in possession of the data, I don't own it, nor do I have any guarantee of ongoing use.
You could actually say the same about iTunes video until they remove the DRM. Look at how many people got burnt when Plays For Sure turned on them. Remember when Walmart shut off their music authentication servers??
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/09/26...tting-dow.html
It seems to me that Amazon is playing the same game here that they play with books and mp3s.
They're willing to lose money on every sale to get marketshare. I don't see how the networks would give Amazon a better deal than they give Apple, esp. ABC.
Amazon wants to be a power in the download anything market, and now they're big enough to throw away a lot of money to do so.
I don't think they are loosing money, but making less money? They probably are.
Otherwise, company loosing money on pretty much everything they sell would not be with us for too long.
If anything is unproductive in these pages, it is quite often you.
Ok guys, cut it out.
I have some videos Amazon gave me for buying DVDs or something like that. I can download a copy to my physical storage, but then I'd have to watch them on a PC or Tivo.
I've ALWAYS found Amazon to be a clunky interface (the store) and the video stuff is more of the same. The best interface thing I've seen from Amazon is its ability to drop purchased songs into iTunes.
This is from the interface of a video they gave me....
In the past couple of years or so, a number of companies have been giving a copy of the movie on the DVD that was compatible with the iPhone. so Amazon didn't begin that notion.
Yeah, it's clumsy, but at least it's another source.
I'm just wary about being told that you will own this, but we will keep the copy, not you.
If you rent/buy five episodes a month a DVR monthly cost is worth it.
If you aren't a numbskull, you can just hook up a small computer with a tuner card and have this functionality for FREE.
This would be impressive if it wasn't BASIC FREE BROADCAST PROGRAMMING! ! ! !
I don't think they are loosing money, but making less money? They probably are.
Otherwise, company loosing money on pretty much everything they sell would not be with us for too long.
They were willing to lose as much as $5 per book they sold. They were paying the publishers 50% of the list price, which was up to $30. They were then selling those books for $9.99. While I was always suspicious that they would either raise the price someday, or go back to the publishers and demand that they pay far less, once they had established a monopoly in e-book sales, as they were trying to do with this tactic, there was no indication when either of those concepts would happen. Meanwhile they were blithly losing from $1 to $5 every time they sold a book, plus the transaction costs.
Apple is estimated to be making 5 to 6 cents profit per song at a sale price of 99 cents. Amazon has been selling them for 89 cents. That would be about 5 cents below Apple's costs. And Apple sells over ten tines as many songs, so their cost per song is much less. Amazon must be losing money there as well.
Same thing for these Tv shows. Apple will again be making pennies on these rentals. Making an assumption that each download costs the same, after the first download by Amazon, it's going to cost them the same as the first time. The more times someone downloads a show, the more Amazon is in the hole for it. There's no way out for them. It's impossible that the companies gave them a better deal, as they think that 99 cents for a one time rental is already too little. So Amazon must be paying them everytime someone downloads it again.
Amazon, like Apple has risen quickly. Their sales are very large now, and they've been making good profits. They are taking the low road to marketshare. Like MS, they're using their profits in other areas to finance losses in these areas they think are so important to their future. They must believe that at the end of the day they will be able to squeeze money out of it. I'm sure they have a secret plan for that. But if they can't manage to corral the majority of the market, that plan can't be enacted.
It's tough for them as Apple is not seeing media sales as a way to large profits. They see it as a way to sell the hardware that IS the way to large profits. So they can't undersell and still eck a small profit out of it. They are taking losses. But Apple went around them in the book market, and forced the prices up to the point where everyone will make money on it for the long term, including Amazon.
HELLOOO? Who cares? These shows are for FREE on broadcast HDTV with HIGHER QUALITY.
If you rent/buy five episodes a month a DVR monthly cost is worth it.
If you aren't a numbskull, you can just hook up a small computer with a tuner card and have this functionality for FREE.
This would be impressive if it wasn't BASIC FREE BROADCAST PROGRAMMING! ! ! !
Uh, most of us get cable because what the over the air broadcasters offer is often trivial, and doesn't cover much. I pay over $90 a month, and I know many people who pay more. Even basic these days isn't cheap. Some people will do much better with this than continuing to pay their cable bill. And others who can afford it will have both, for the convenience.
People aren't numbskulls for not doing what you think they should.
Uh, most of us get cable because what the over the air broadcasters offer is often trivial, and doesn't cover much. I pay over $90 a month, and I know many people who pay more. Even basic these days isn't cheap. Some people will do much better with this than continuing to pay their cable bill. And others who can afford it will have both, for the convenience.
People aren't numbskulls for not doing what you think they should.
"FOX and ABC shows"
That's NOT Cable!!!! If they had episodes of CABLE shows I would be impressed!!
Okay, maybe I'm overreacting here, maybe for some people 99 cents isn't much of a price to pay for the convenience of seeing a show on your schedule. But it's not even a purchase, it's a rental!! With the internet TV services now maturing, why can't I just watch a free show with the commercials whenever I want to? Isn't that what the networks want us to do? Watch their shows with ads? That's how traditional TV works...why do we now have to pay for IPTV?
Anyway you, for example, if you're paying over $90/month, I bet you have a DVR. And like I said, for the cost of 5 of these stupid rentals, you can pay a monthly fee for a DVR, which allows you to keep your episodes as long as you want.
Furthermore, these rentals don't even have the correct kind of proportions. They cost half the price of the full episode to own. If you rent a movie on iTunes, it costs less than 1/3 of the price to own the DVD or Blu-Ray. $3-4 gets you an SD rental ($10-15 DVD), and $4-5 gets you HD ($15-25 Blu-ray). So why are TV episodes a full half of the price of what Apple charged for ownership?
The average American watches 4 hours of TV a day. If you rent all your TV like this, you will pay $120/month for TV, assuming you only watch 1 hour episodes. That's $240/month if you watch all 30 minute episodes. Sure, you don't have commercials, but you could buy a brand new car for that much money.
As an example, you can buy the Glee season 1 DVD for $1.60 an episode, and own them forever. It probably has some sort of special features too.
One last thing: do we know if these rentals have closed captioning? I'm not seeing it on Apple's TV page.