Warner Bros. execs find Apple's 99 cent TV show rentals too cheap

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 109
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    So rather than collect 99 cents from people (for a program that is already bought and paid for in full by studios) you would rather accept nothing from those same people?



    There's a great business model.



    Oh, and I'm taking my fooball and going home!
  • Reply 22 of 109
    At $1.99 or $2.99 per episode, I have purchased exactly ZERO TV shows off of iTunes. No dollars from me.



    Now, at $.99, I may consider buying a show or two when I want to watch something. Heck, I'd probably end up spending $5-10 per month, and I rarely watch TV. So, at the lower price, you get a lot more sales. And since every sale is essentially profit, you see a huge increase that way.
  • Reply 23 of 109
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jsmythe00 View Post


    I hear you but we already get those 7 shows now...for $70 via Dish. What we're want/hope is to get those shows and only those shows for say....$30-$40. If Apple TV can get that to us, that'll just be one more Apple product in a long list of Apple products in our house.



    Also, in one extreme case we even wait a year to see Dexter on Netflix vs paying the $11 to watch it on showtime.



    That is only 4 or 5 episodes per show for $70 via Dish... right now, you are paying about $2 per episode...



    Apple's model will cut your bill in half.
  • Reply 24 of 109
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    People,



    This issue is pretty complex with a lot of players with eventual harm to a lot of business models. This isn’t about simply ignoring a new revenue stream with no negative impact on other revenue streams.



    And why the defense of Cable and Satellite as a means of “saving money” on TV Show viewing when Netflix, Hulu are considerably cheap, and even free for regular Hulu? That makes no sense, unless you are purposely ignoring the cons of the cable and satellite while ignoring the pros of non-Cable TV or Satellite based media.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jsmythe00 View Post


    I hear you but we already get those 7 shows now...for $70 via Dish. What we're want/hope is to get those shows and only those shows for say....$30-$40. If Apple TV can get that to us, that'll just be one more Apple product in a long list of Apple products in our house.



    Also, in one extreme case we even wait a year to see Dexter on Netflix vs paying the $11 to watch it on showtime.



    Isn’t that only a $2 month saving for Dexter? Though you can just fly through the season quickly on Netflix, are the saving so great that make it worth waiting a year? Personally, that is one (of many) shows I like to watch immediately.
  • Reply 25 of 109
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Idiots...



    How much do they get from the ads when I watch it for free on Hulu?



    How much does Netflix pay them when I watch it on a DVD or via their online options?



    How much do they get in ads when I watch it for free over the air?



    Even with cable fees plus ads, how much do they earn per episode?



    What's their cut if I rent it from Blockbuser or Red Box?



    I'd bet not a single one of these alternate sources gets them 70 cents per episode (99 cents minus Apple's 30% cut). And then there is the incremental income they are losing from people who simply wouldn't watch it at all if they missed it on TV, but who might pay the 99 cents to get it from iTunes to watch on their iPhone or iPad.



    What they are really afraid of is loss of control and influence. If they can't insert ads or control the distribution, then they can't tell you about all their other crap they want you to watch. What percentage of ads aren't even for products, but for other TV shows? Ever wonder why you have 5 weather channels, all those shopping channels, and those dozens and dozens of other channels nobody ever watches? It's because those channels are owned by the big networks. And they tell the cable provider, "I won't let you carry CBS unless you also carry the CBS weather channel, etc, etc."



    So it's not about how much an episode is worth. It's about wanting to be financially compensated for the threat it represents to their overall empire. It's nothing but a giant welfare program to prop up all their other crap that nobody would otherwise pay money to view.
  • Reply 26 of 109
    I have considered a mac mini, or even an apple TV for a "media extender on my projector, but unfortunatelly the apple TV is going towards renting, which I don't do much of.



    I wouldn't even consider renting a TV show on a device I had to pay for(apple TV) unless it was down below $0.50. $5 to rent a movie, that is rediculous too. I will stick with my local red Box for $2 blu ray rentals...and I'll continue to acquire my tv shows elsewhere. Lets just say friends I have never met record for me what I missed and I download from them.
  • Reply 27 of 109
    They have really lost the plot



    Many people these days can record TV shows to their PVR and then archive to DVD, all for free. Well we can in the UK at least



    Considering they are competing with that and torrents they would be doing very well to get 99c a rental



    Personally I don't see torrenting of tv shows in the same light as films and music, it's lke a form of timeshifting. Not that I do it, tv doesn't interest me that much
  • Reply 28 of 109
    FU WB: Your shows suck anyway.



    When you have the balls and vision to put out something as good as "The Sopranos", "Entourage", "The Wire", or "Boardwalk Empire," then maybe I'll support your farcical company, which relies on pumping out crappy remakes of movies that were crappy to begin with.
  • Reply 29 of 109
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post


    Full package digital cable costs $2/day. If WB truly expects me to pay that much for a single episode they're nuts.



    They don't. They want you to watch it on cable and pay $2.99 for an episode every once in a while.



    I understand Warner Brothers' reason for keeping the single-episode pricing high, which is to protect the licensing fees they get from the networks that broadcast their shows and the retransmission fees they get from the local cable carriers that carry their networks.



    The reason the networks have pushed back so hard against an iTunes/Netflix/Amazon/whatever subscription plan is that they've got a good racket going with the way things work now and don't want to disrupt that by giving people a reason to drop their cable.



    What I don't understand is why they think it's going to work for very much longer. I think the push-back against cable is going to accelerate as Netflix Watch Instantly and similar services start to take hold. People want to watch current shows, but they've got so many more choices now than they did five years ago that it's not hard to pass on a new show when you know you can pick it up on DVD or watch it on Amazon VOD later.
  • Reply 30 of 109
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macinthe408 View Post


    FU WB: Your shows suck anyway.



    When you have the balls and vision to put out something as good as "The Sopranos", "Entourage", "The Wire", or "Boardwalk Empire," then maybe I'll support your farcical company, which relies on pumping out crappy remakes of movies that were crappy to begin with.



    Warner Brothers produced or is currently producing all of those shows through its HBO unit. Try again.
  • Reply 31 of 109
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,523member
    To paraphrase Arnie ... "They'll be back'"
  • Reply 32 of 109
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Porchland View Post


    They don't. They want you to watch it on cable and pay $2.99 for an episode every once in a while.



    I understand Warner Brothers' reason for keeping the single-episode pricing high, which is to protect the licensing fees they get from the networks that broadcast their shows and the retransmission fees they get from the local cable carriers that carry their networks.



    The reason the networks have pushed back so hard against an iTunes/Netflix/Amazon/whatever subscription plan is that they've got a good racket going with the way things work now and don't want to disrupt that by giving people a reason to drop their cable.



    Well, too late in my case. I dropped mine 6 months ago and could not be happier. I bet a lot more are going to join me soon.
  • Reply 33 of 109
    I know what Netflix has to offer.



    Anyone know if it ever will be possible for Redbox to offer their wares for the AppleTV anytime soon @ .99?
  • Reply 34 of 109
    I have already pre-ordered my AppleTV and intend to rent a few more shows than I might have just to help ensure that it's a big success, but mostly to spite Warner Bros. and other short sighted greedsters.



    It'd be great if iTMS was a huge success and WB had to come begging to Steve, and he could extract painful concessions!



    I guy can dream, can't he?
  • Reply 35 of 109
    I have yet to see anything on the WB network I would be willing to pay for. I think most TV shows are garbage and I think TV networks should have to pay us to watch their trash.
  • Reply 36 of 109
    I don't understand why they don't put the stuff on itunes as a rental for free as it appears on TV - (commercials and all) and just make it so you can't fast forward through commercials. They can charge more for the embedded commercials from advertisers because they are permanent and the user must watch - instead of change the channel or FF on DVR. Even if these were $.50 each I'm sure they'd still be more profitable than OTA.



    Most people forget these networks started as solely OTA, with their only profits being advertising. Now that the cable companies pay them they think its a right that we all pay them for content too. We are the product they are selling. Not the other way around. Without us watching to sell advertising space they have nothing.
  • Reply 37 of 109
    gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jsmythe00 View Post


    I hear you but we already get those 7 shows now...for $70 via Dish. What we're want/hope is to get those shows and only those shows for say....$30-$40. If Apple TV can get that to us, that'll just be one more Apple product in a long list of Apple products in our house.



    Also, in one extreme case we even wait a year to see Dexter on Netflix vs paying the $11 to watch it on showtime.



    But you do understand, don't you, that you would be renting in lieu of Dish, not in addition to it?
  • Reply 38 of 109
    I think what is really going on is that Disney wants to discount their programs on THEIR OWN distribution system, and price them higher on Apple's.



    But what annoys me is that this is a "rental." -- I mean, can't we go back and watch it again later? I can store something off the TV and Cable right now and not have to deal with this.



    More inconvenience again. It's really silly for LEGITIMATE buyers. The people UNENCUMBERED by DRM are people who just download the episode -- but the people PAYING, have a DRM, time and location limited "rental." It's already nonsense with all the content getting made -- there is more than I can possibly watch on Dish Network. 99% of it I don't care to see -- so "al a carte" is a great idea.



    But "al a carte" with some chains on it -- is just annoying. I probably will throw away old episodes of TV-shows and such, but in a blue moon, I have a "keeper." Letting me have a NON-DRM file does not mean that people won't pay $.99 for the convenience of their own "stuff."



    Price it low, and people will spend MORE money with this, and there won't be a pirate market. Price it high, and LESS overall money will be spent, and you create an incentive to go outside your network.



    Maybe they just REALLY like calling the FBI to hunt down college students and make life miserable -- it would figure.
  • Reply 39 of 109
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,716member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    This issue is pretty complex with a lot of players with eventual harm to a lot of business models. This isn’t about simply ignoring a new revenue stream with no negative impact on other revenue streams.



    And why the defense of Cable and Satellite as a means of “saving money” on TV Show viewing when Netflix, Hulu are considerably cheap, and even free for regular Hulu? That makes no sense, unless you are purposely ignoring the cons of the cable and satellite while ignoring the pros of non-Cable TV or Satellite based media.



    Yes - these are entrenched business models with guaranteed revenue streams for the content providers. There is no doubt that the everything is changing but there are many big players looking to the future for not only growth but also survival. Everyone is stepping cautiously into the new world. I can't see it any other way than that the cable operators who now have a lot of control are the ones that will loose out. That's why there is consolidation happening out there. Bell in Canada just bought CTV, the number one TV network (in Canada) for that very reason.



    >>The president and CEO of CTV Globemedia, Ivan Fecan, said CTV’s content will help Bell and CTV grow. “In today’s digital age, it is extremely important to be a part of a vertically integrated company that can take advantage of content over multiple screens,” said Fecan, who added that the deal will “accelerate Bell’s video growth across all three screens – mobile, online and TV.” <<



    I hope that in the future I will be able to create my own menu of programs and to be able to watch them when and where I want. I would also like to be able to adjust the number of ads I will be subjected to (pay more or less for rental) but I can't really see that happening. What is certain is that as a consumer I may get more options but I will still be fleeced.
  • Reply 40 of 109
    I'm not even going to spend the 99 cents. I just want the new box as a connector to my Mac and to Netflix.
Sign In or Register to comment.