You could be my long lost twin. Not only won't I watch commercials, but I can't even be bothered to fast forward them. Repeat: There is nothing so good on tv to make me watch commercials or even be bothered to pick up the remote. Case closed! Well, maybe the world series or some such thing but the way Fox broadcasts it (beyonfpd horrible), I may even extend my rule to it.
Hit the nail SMACK on the head mate,
There is nothing I despise more than paying close to $1200 pre year for digital cable and on top of that being forced to watch commercials ! Beep that.
Cancelled the cable, ordered two Apple TV's and signed up an iTunes account to purchase all of the current things I like though iTunes Season Pass ( Commercial Free ) and got Netflix for under ten bucks a month ( Commercial Free ), my savings after this year is still $900 and next year it will be just about a $1000.
Screw commercials, people need to stand up to all this crap shoved down our throats.
None of it is free. Don?t be so myopic to think everyone could stop paying for cable, just get free downloads and the cable/sat would still be able to pay the networks for access to their content and that advertisers would still be willing to pay the same for content that could have the ads easily removed.
Where exactly do you think the profits wil come from? An á la carte service for a rented episode. No! They depend on the bulk payments from cable and sat companies. You can through out all the ifs and buts about people renting x-many shows but that is at the risk of destroying large guaranteed lump payments.
I agree. I just switched for FiOS, and the DVR was $20/month along with ~ $60 in programming fees.
I think that the problem is that Apple is offering a per-episode fee and the studios want a per-season buy. If I get a discount on a season buy (like the discount for a subscription to a magazine, about 50%-60% discount), then perhaps I could imagine a $24/season buy and a $2/episode buy for AppleTV.
I think the studios wants $.99 plus ads. That is what they are driving at. Kind of like the Hulu plus model.
That model has been working for them since the dawn of television with their affiliates for over half a century and for decades with cable and sat. It’s no wonder they want to keep it going and they are afraid that a shift will hurt their profit. Despite what some chuckleheads are saying, you pay for your cable or satellite which they pay for to get access to (sometimes by affiliates, who then pay for access), and you still have commercials in your content.
The shit isn’t free. Frankly I’m shocked at how many regular posters here think that it’s okay for these models to exist in such a way and compete with different services until it involves Apple, then they expect Apple to offer the cheapest service with the most options and somehow Apple has the power to control the content owners. It didn’t work for the original AppleTV, which arguable is the reason why it never took off, so why do we expect Apple to have more control over them now.
I never said these should be the only options, I just think Apple needs to support imports of our EXISTING physical content already. It's been about 6 years since they introduced video to iTunes. And I was also saying that it's not all Apple's issue. The Media Giants want us to constantly re-purchase content. Because they are Greedy. If you could import existing content, then you could take it everywhere, instead of having to re-purchase or "rent" a movie on-the-go or traveling when you already own on DVD/BD but can't rip it to iTunes.
Legally Apple can not do this (at least in the US they can't). Last year Real Networks lost their court case when they were sued for doing just this. And Kaleidoscope won their court case on a contractual technicality only to lose on appeal.
Solipsism is arguing from the Networks point of view. Put yourself in the Networks position. Which would you rather have, large steady payments or a bunch or micro payments? It's not surprising that the Networks prefer the large steady payments.
I agree. I just switched for FiOS, and the DVR was $20/month along with ~ $60 in programming fees.
I think that the problem is that Apple is offering a per-episode fee and the studios want a per-season buy. If I get a discount on a season buy (like the discount for a subscription to a magazine, about 50%-60% discount), then perhaps I could imagine a $24/season buy and a $2/episode buy for AppleTV.
Would that make the studios happier?
Apple is also offering HD that is better than what cable and sat can offer. And is offering the ability to store and play locally on an iDevice without an internet connection and without ads, something Hulu, Netflix, Ruko and other others can?t offer.
I think the studios are being overly cautious here, but it is there content and they not only have the right, but the responsibility to their shareholders to protect financial interests.
As I stated before, there is on one-to-one relationship with the content purchases. There can?t be! The networks get huge lump sums from those wanting to offer these channels to their customers. Each person who stops paying for cable isn?t a fee they don?t have to pay to the networks. This is a very, very, very complex situation that will be disastrous for many down the road.
Legally Apple can not do this (at least in the US they can't). Last year Real Networks lost their court case when they were sued for doing just this. And Kaleidoscope won their court case on a contractual technicality only to lose on appeal.
Solipsism is arguing from the Networks point of view. Put yourself in the Networks position. Which would you rather have, large steady payments or a bunch or micro payments? It's not surprising that the Networks prefer the large steady payments.
"How can you justify renting your first-run TV shows individually for 99 cents an episode and thereby jeopardize the sale of the same shows as a series to branded networks that pay hundreds of millions of dollars and make those shows available to loyal viewers for free?" Bewkes said.
Which shows available on iTunes are first run and have not been seen or sold to a branded network?
Sounds like he is talking about shows that have been made and not yet bought up by anyone.
Apple is offering content providers extra income from viewers who forgot to set their DVR or discovered the show after it had run. This is a layer of extra income and not competition.
No, people will drop their cable and satelite subscriptions if they can buy the shows they watch ala carte for less. If you are paying $75 a month for cable to watch an average of 10-12 shows a week, you could dump your cable and just pay $40-50 a month, and only for the months where they are delivering new content. Come re-run season you would pay nothing.
Looking at it another way, say you watch 25 different shows in a year with a total of 20 new episodes each (which is a LOT of TV) it would cost you $500 a year. A basic tier package will cost you $50 a month or more which is $600 plus a year. So, even though $1 per show is a lot, you will pay less to the industry if you stop paying for all the crap you don't watch. To make it worse, if you have to pay per show, you will probably watch a lot less than you do now, since you wont be channel surfing when bored.
There is nothing I despise more than paying close to $1200 pre year for digital cable and on top of that being forced to watch commercials ! Beep that.
Cancelled the cable, ordered two Apple TV's and signed up an iTunes account to purchase all of the current things I like though iTunes Season Pass ( Commercial Free ) and got Netflix for under ten bucks a month ( Commercial Free ), my savings after this year is still $900 and next year it will be just about a $1000.
Screw commercials, people need to stand up to all this crap shoved down our throats.
BINGO. If too many people do this the industry will be in trouble. They will be forced to charge more than $1 or they will have to look for other sources of revenue to pay for all the shows they make, or they will have to make less and or cheaper shows.
BINGO. If too many people do this the industry will be in trouble. They will be forced to charge more than $1 or they will have to look for other sources of revenue to pay for all the shows they make, or they will have to make less and or cheaper shows.
It?s pretty amazing how we seem to ignore these things. I remember when Hulu Plus was dropped and it was $10/month and it was ad supported. People actually seemed shocked by such a concept, despite this is what people have been paying for with cable and satellite for decades.
Ordinarily, I would agree with the idea that models that cause erosion can sometimes be highly detrimental to core businesses.
But in this case, his argument makes no sense because the networks themselves put up most shows online for free, the day after broadcast (albeit, sometimes with advertising).
So if the networks put them up for free, why is it detrimental to syndication sales to put them up for 99 cents? Besides, the syndication sales don't even usually start until a show has racked up 100 episodes (about four seasons).
The answer to this is to let Apple put them up for 99 cents, but they can only keep up each episode for a limited time (up to a few months). Most people willing to pay for a TV show generally want to see the show only when it's new anyway, and they're paying the price either because they've missed the broadcast or because they want to view it on a different device.
If he wants to make a valid argument, he could argue that 99 cent online sales kill sales of DVD/Blu-ray compilations, but that could also be partially resolved by the time limit on online sales. Besides, the people willing to pay 99 cents for an episode may well not be willing to pay $35 for a season.
I agree that there are a lot of crap networks out there that I would rather not subscribe to, but I do because it's part of a package.
That being said though, I think what a lot of people don't realize is, if TV went 100% a-la-carte, then once you've watched everything once, how do you find out about new shows? With no commercials, how you find out about new content. For my household, 99% of the new content we find out about is either: 1. Commercials or 2. friends/colleagues. That's how I heard about LOST, a commercial. We hardly ever search for new content via internet. Granted every once in a while i stumble on something. But that's about it. If it went the iTunes model, you'd start hearing crickets coming out of your ATV after a while IMO.
Additionally, without Ads and cable/satv/dish companies, we would have no TV to watch. They play a huge part in the broadcasting of new shows. And I think that's what all the Media Giants are afraid will happen. If that happens where to commercials/previews fit in? We all hate those forced video ads that pop-up and we instantly close them if that option is available, but i digress...
Plus Mr. Pig, I find it surprising that you can't watch a movie more than once? You must have a very short attention span. Granted I don't have a huge library, and I thin it out every once in a while, but I do keep at least 50 of my favorites in the collection at all times. With Netflix, I find myself buying less and less movies, because for the price we pay, I can stand to rent movies a couple times.
How to find out about new shows? Like you, I have found out about good shows from friends/coworkers. I also check websites to see what is new. Solution: The cable companies and/or Apple should host a free "You-Tubish" preview channel, complete with clips from each show/movie. Have Apple make the channel available for free in itunes.
The problem I have with ads? Let's see......I would pay $100.00 a month for a "package" containing hundreds of channels - most of which are crap. Most of the money from my monthly bill would finance junk such as "news" channels, MTV, etc. If I really want news, I would go online. I avoid getting my news from a Media Giant. Why else do you think few people buy newspapers anymore?
Oh, and when I view a 2 hour movie, one third (or more) of that time is devoted to commercials. And the cable/satellite companies turn up the volume on your TV real loud whenever an ad runs. Brilliant. Remember the argument for cable TV when it first came out? "It's wonderful! For a monthly fee, you get all these channels and NO commercials!"
I do not watch a movie more than once. I am able to do it, but I choose not to. I get bored watching re-runs. I do make exceptions to this rule: "Scrooge" and "It's a Wonderful Life" need to be seen every year around Christmastime. Nature documentaries by David Attenborough and the old Wild Kingdom series can also be watched over and over.
Netflix sounds like a good deal. I would want to watch Netflix movies/shows via an internet connection. But the lack of parental controls is keeping me away. There is NO WAY to prevent a child from selecting any single movie or genre of movies. For example, if I do not want my child to watch horror movies, there is no way I, as a parent, can block that out.
The Networks already got their money out of me and many others twice already. I buy their content on physical media. First I purchased on DVD, now I'm starting to replace some on BD. Why couldn't it be imported to iTunes the same way that I can with Music CD's? That's my point, It doesn't make any sense to me. They got money out of me, sometimes twice or even three times over, in some cases I had VHS as well. That's where my greed comment comes in. I don't see where you're getting steady payments vs. micro payments from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee
Legally Apple can not do this (at least in the US they can't). Last year Real Networks lost their court case when they were sued for doing just this. And Kaleidoscope won their court case on a contractual technicality only to lose on appeal.
Solipsism is arguing from the Networks point of view. Put yourself in the Networks position. Which would you rather have, large steady payments or a bunch or micro payments? It's not surprising that the Networks prefer the large steady payments.
I do see your POV here, Sucks that Netflix doesn't have parental features. I'm not even sure Apple TV does for that matter. I know iTunes allows blocking certain content, but how that works in conjunction with iTunes is beyond me.
I like your idea of the preview channel. Or they could just place previews in front of rented shows/movies, like DVDs do.
Speaking of additional content. Does anyone know if movies and TV in iTunes and Netflix offer streaming speacial feature disc content, like commentaries, out-takes, interviews like on physical DVD's/BD's? Personally, that's 75% of my decision for purchase. what kinds of special features and Commentary tracks are available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourgoises Pig
How to find out about new shows? Like you, I have found out about good shows from friends/coworkers. I also check websites to see what is new. Solution: The cable companies and/or Apple should host a free "You-Tubish" preview channel, complete with clips from each show/movie. Have Apple make the channel available for free in itunes.
The problem I have with ads? Let's see......I would pay $100.00 a month for a "package" containing hundreds of channels - most of which are crap. Most of the money from my monthly bill would finance junk such as "news" channels, MTV, etc. If I really want news, I would go online. I avoid getting my news from a Media Giant. Why else do you think few people buy newspapers anymore?
Oh, and when I view a 2 hour movie, one third (or more) of that time is devoted to commercials. And the cable/satellite companies turn up the volume on your TV real loud whenever an ad runs. Brilliant. Remember the argument for cable TV when it first came out? "It's wonderful! For a monthly fee, you get all these channels and NO commercials!"
I do not watch a movie more than once. I am able to do it, but I choose not to. I get bored watching re-runs. I do make exceptions to this rule: "Scrooge" and "It's a Wonderful Life" need to be seen every year around Christmastime. Nature documentaries by David Attenborough and the old Wild Kingdom series can also be watched over and over.
Netflix sounds like a good deal. I would want to watch Netflix movies/shows via an internet connection. But the lack of parental controls is keeping me away. There is NO WAY to prevent a child from selecting any single movie or genre of movies. For example, if I do not want my child to watch horror movies, there is no way I, as a parent, can block that out.
It?s pretty amazing how we seem to ignore these things. I remember when Hulu Plus was dropped and it was $10/month and it was ad supported. People actually seemed shocked by such a concept, despite this is what people have been paying for with cable and satellite for decades.
People don't realize the cost involved in putting together a decent drama show in hopes you can capture an audience for more than a few episodes. Each successful show needs to bring in enough revenue to not only cover its costs, but also the costs of the attempts that failed plus enough profit to make it worth taking the risk. Take away the profit, and they will stop taking risks, and you will end up with a bunch of Jersey Shore shows for your Apple TV. And people will blame the networks for not producing any shows.
Here is a clue, the ATV is worthless without content. The content providers don't need Apple, Apple needs their content, so NBC CBS and Time Warner have a pretty good negotiating possition. Pay them what they want or ATV will fail.
People don't realize the cost involved in putting together a decent drama show in hopes you can capture an audience for more than a few episodes. Each successful show needs to bring in enough revenue to not only cover its costs, but also the costs of the attempts that failed plus enough profit to make it worth taking the risk. Take away the profit, and they will stop taking risks, and you will end up with a bunch of Jersey Shore shows for your Apple TV. And people will blame the networks for not producing any shows.
Here is a clue, the ATV is worthless without content. The content providers don't need Apple, Apple needs their content, so NBC CBS and Time Warner have a pretty good negotiating possition. Pay them what they want or ATV will fail.
How much did it cost to produce one episode of the TV show ER? Was it 45 million? Why so much?
Risks? What risks? Thanks to endless re-runs, even TV shows such as Gilligan's Island continue to make the owners of that show very wealthy. When was that show, in 1967? Was making that show a risk. How many other investors can continue to make money by reselling the same stale product an endless number of times. And today, you do not even need talent nor good looks to be on TV anymore.
Actors (even bad ones) can earn tens of millions of dollars per movie, or they earn just as much by starring in a TV show that lasts a couple of seasons. Why. And then they end up blowing huge chunks of it on drugs while flaunting a bizarre, alternative lifestyle. Please tell me that the people involved in making TV shows and movies actually worked very hard to EARN their money. Does anyone think those people would starve if everyone were to abandon cable for streaming content at $10 a month. Maybe they would be forced to buy crack instead of coke.
ATV is worthless without content. Agreed. There is no law that states that content needs to be made in the USA. Nothing else is made here, so why should TV and movies be the exception. One example of many: Maybe SJ could buy rights to all the Mexican soap operas and dub them in English for itunes. My point is that maybe people would enjoy watching TV shows from other countries (both dubbed and undubbed).
Here is a clue, the ATV is worthless without content. The content providers don't need Apple, Apple needs their content, so NBC CBS and Time Warner have a pretty good negotiating possition. Pay them what they want or ATV will fail.
Yes, the ATV needs content. But it doesn't need network television rental content, which is the issue here. There is plenty of other content and, like many, my interest in ATV is centered on streaming from other iDevices, and the future app store for it.
Bewkes was quite clear, Apple can't just "pay them what they want". They don't want an ala-carte rental, or even a purchase, model. They want a different business model and episode price isn't the issue. I suspect the only way Apple could get all the networks on board is to offer series bundles (hundreds of shows) on a $70+/month subscription basis. In other words, become a cable network, just through iTunes over the internet. And even that might not satisfy them.
The Networks already got their money out of me and many others twice already. I buy their content on physical media. First I purchased on DVD, now I'm starting to replace some on BD. Why couldn't it be imported to iTunes the same way that I can with Music CD's? That's my point, It doesn't make any sense to me. They got money out of me, sometimes twice or even three times over, in some cases I had VHS as well. That's where my greed comment comes in. I don't see where you're getting steady payments vs. micro payments from.
We are talking two separate things here. First, ripping DVDs. Both the Studios and the Labels want to lock down their content. But unfortunately for the Labels, CDs are not locked down nor encrypted. Furthermore Congress passed the Home Audio Recording Act which made it legal for users to rip CDs in order to make backup copies. Learning from this the DVDForum (acting in behalf of the Studios) encrypted their DVDs and got Congress to pass a law (the DMCA) making it illegal to break the DVD encryption. To further their DVD lockdown the DVDForum has kept their DVD License private and confidential.
One of the license provisions is that a licensee can not copy the DVD onto other storage devices. It was this provision that Real Networks broke and was sued for. Kaleidoscope won their original court case due to the confidentiality of the DVD License and the unwillingness of the DVDForum to share it with them before the license purchase. The original judge ruled that the license provisions not shared prior to the purchase was unenforceable. The judge was overruled on appeal.
The point with the large steady payments vrs. the bunch of micro payments has to do with who is paying the networks for their content. Currently the broadcasters, cable companies and satellite companies are paying huge amounts of cash to the networks just for the right to distribute the networks content. Now Apple is coming along with a consignment model where the networks give Apple their content and Apple than sells/rents it to us, the individual consumers, giving a portion of each sell back to the network. Now which do you think the networks would prefer, large payments from the content distributers or portions of small individual sells to the final consumers? Look at the clothing industry, who does better, the factories selling to the department stores or the seamstresses selling from consignment shops?
We are talking two separate things here. First, ripping DVDs. Both the Studios and the Labels want to lock down their content. But unfortunately for the Labels, CDs are not locked down nor encrypted. Furthermore Congress passed the Home Audio Recording Act which made it legal for users to rip CDs in order to make backup copies. Learning from this the DVDForum (acting in behalf of the Studios) encrypted their DVDs and got Congress to pass a law (the DMCA) making it illegal to break the DVD encryption. To further their DVD lockdown the DVDForum has kept their DVD License private and confidential.
One of the license provisions is that a licensee can not copy the DVD onto other storage devices. It was this provision that Real Networks broke and was sued for. Kaleidoscope won their original court case due to the confidentiality of the DVD License and the unwillingness of the DVDForum to share it with them before the license purchase. The original judge ruled that the license provisions not shared prior to the purchase was unenforceable. The judge was overruled on appeal.
The point with the large steady payments vrs. the bunch of micro payments has to do with who is paying the networks for their content. Currently the broadcasters, cable companies and satellite companies are paying huge amounts of cash to the networks just for the right to distribute the networks content. Now Apple is coming along with a consignment model where the networks give Apple their content and Apple than sells/rents it to us, the individual consumers, giving a portion of each sell back to the network. Now which do you think the networks would prefer, large payments from the content distributers or portions of small individual sells to the final consumers? Look at the clothing industry, who does better, the factories selling to the department stores or the seamstresses selling from consignment shops?
I love how you're stating all this stuff as if I didn't already say this an much more simplistic way just a few posts above. Just proves that you and others just don't read the post, you skim them. Then try to insert your own spin on the conversations to make it all sound like these thoughts originated by you.
Comments
You could be my long lost twin. Not only won't I watch commercials, but I can't even be bothered to fast forward them. Repeat: There is nothing so good on tv to make me watch commercials or even be bothered to pick up the remote. Case closed! Well, maybe the world series or some such thing but the way Fox broadcasts it (beyonfpd horrible), I may even extend my rule to it.
Hit the nail SMACK on the head mate,
There is nothing I despise more than paying close to $1200 pre year for digital cable and on top of that being forced to watch commercials ! Beep that.
Cancelled the cable, ordered two Apple TV's and signed up an iTunes account to purchase all of the current things I like though iTunes Season Pass ( Commercial Free ) and got Netflix for under ten bucks a month ( Commercial Free ), my savings after this year is still $900 and next year it will be just about a $1000.
Screw commercials, people need to stand up to all this crap shoved down our throats.
You might to rethink your post.
None of it is free. Don?t be so myopic to think everyone could stop paying for cable, just get free downloads and the cable/sat would still be able to pay the networks for access to their content and that advertisers would still be willing to pay the same for content that could have the ads easily removed.
Where exactly do you think the profits wil come from? An á la carte service for a rented episode. No! They depend on the bulk payments from cable and sat companies. You can through out all the ifs and buts about people renting x-many shows but that is at the risk of destroying large guaranteed lump payments.
I agree. I just switched for FiOS, and the DVR was $20/month along with ~ $60 in programming fees.
I think that the problem is that Apple is offering a per-episode fee and the studios want a per-season buy. If I get a discount on a season buy (like the discount for a subscription to a magazine, about 50%-60% discount), then perhaps I could imagine a $24/season buy and a $2/episode buy for AppleTV.
Would that make the studios happier?
I think the studios wants $.99 plus ads. That is what they are driving at. Kind of like the Hulu plus model.
That model has been working for them since the dawn of television with their affiliates for over half a century and for decades with cable and sat. It’s no wonder they want to keep it going and they are afraid that a shift will hurt their profit. Despite what some chuckleheads are saying, you pay for your cable or satellite which they pay for to get access to (sometimes by affiliates, who then pay for access), and you still have commercials in your content.
The shit isn’t free. Frankly I’m shocked at how many regular posters here think that it’s okay for these models to exist in such a way and compete with different services until it involves Apple, then they expect Apple to offer the cheapest service with the most options and somehow Apple has the power to control the content owners. It didn’t work for the original AppleTV, which arguable is the reason why it never took off, so why do we expect Apple to have more control over them now.
I never said these should be the only options, I just think Apple needs to support imports of our EXISTING physical content already. It's been about 6 years since they introduced video to iTunes. And I was also saying that it's not all Apple's issue. The Media Giants want us to constantly re-purchase content. Because they are Greedy. If you could import existing content, then you could take it everywhere, instead of having to re-purchase or "rent" a movie on-the-go or traveling when you already own on DVD/BD but can't rip it to iTunes.
Legally Apple can not do this (at least in the US they can't). Last year Real Networks lost their court case when they were sued for doing just this. And Kaleidoscope won their court case on a contractual technicality only to lose on appeal.
Solipsism is arguing from the Networks point of view. Put yourself in the Networks position. Which would you rather have, large steady payments or a bunch or micro payments? It's not surprising that the Networks prefer the large steady payments.
I agree. I just switched for FiOS, and the DVR was $20/month along with ~ $60 in programming fees.
I think that the problem is that Apple is offering a per-episode fee and the studios want a per-season buy. If I get a discount on a season buy (like the discount for a subscription to a magazine, about 50%-60% discount), then perhaps I could imagine a $24/season buy and a $2/episode buy for AppleTV.
Would that make the studios happier?
Apple is also offering HD that is better than what cable and sat can offer. And is offering the ability to store and play locally on an iDevice without an internet connection and without ads, something Hulu, Netflix, Ruko and other others can?t offer.
I think the studios are being overly cautious here, but it is there content and they not only have the right, but the responsibility to their shareholders to protect financial interests.
As I stated before, there is on one-to-one relationship with the content purchases. There can?t be! The networks get huge lump sums from those wanting to offer these channels to their customers. Each person who stops paying for cable isn?t a fee they don?t have to pay to the networks. This is a very, very, very complex situation that will be disastrous for many down the road.
Legally Apple can not do this (at least in the US they can't). Last year Real Networks lost their court case when they were sued for doing just this. And Kaleidoscope won their court case on a contractual technicality only to lose on appeal.
Solipsism is arguing from the Networks point of view. Put yourself in the Networks position. Which would you rather have, large steady payments or a bunch or micro payments? It's not surprising that the Networks prefer the large steady payments.
I?m glad someone is looking at the big picture.
"How can you justify renting your first-run TV shows individually for 99 cents an episode and thereby jeopardize the sale of the same shows as a series to branded networks that pay hundreds of millions of dollars and make those shows available to loyal viewers for free?" Bewkes said.
Which shows available on iTunes are first run and have not been seen or sold to a branded network?
Sounds like he is talking about shows that have been made and not yet bought up by anyone.
Apple is offering content providers extra income from viewers who forgot to set their DVR or discovered the show after it had run. This is a layer of extra income and not competition.
No, people will drop their cable and satelite subscriptions if they can buy the shows they watch ala carte for less. If you are paying $75 a month for cable to watch an average of 10-12 shows a week, you could dump your cable and just pay $40-50 a month, and only for the months where they are delivering new content. Come re-run season you would pay nothing.
Looking at it another way, say you watch 25 different shows in a year with a total of 20 new episodes each (which is a LOT of TV) it would cost you $500 a year. A basic tier package will cost you $50 a month or more which is $600 plus a year. So, even though $1 per show is a lot, you will pay less to the industry if you stop paying for all the crap you don't watch. To make it worse, if you have to pay per show, you will probably watch a lot less than you do now, since you wont be channel surfing when bored.
Hit the nail SMACK on the head mate,
There is nothing I despise more than paying close to $1200 pre year for digital cable and on top of that being forced to watch commercials ! Beep that.
Cancelled the cable, ordered two Apple TV's and signed up an iTunes account to purchase all of the current things I like though iTunes Season Pass ( Commercial Free ) and got Netflix for under ten bucks a month ( Commercial Free ), my savings after this year is still $900 and next year it will be just about a $1000.
Screw commercials, people need to stand up to all this crap shoved down our throats.
BINGO. If too many people do this the industry will be in trouble. They will be forced to charge more than $1 or they will have to look for other sources of revenue to pay for all the shows they make, or they will have to make less and or cheaper shows.
BINGO. If too many people do this the industry will be in trouble. They will be forced to charge more than $1 or they will have to look for other sources of revenue to pay for all the shows they make, or they will have to make less and or cheaper shows.
It?s pretty amazing how we seem to ignore these things. I remember when Hulu Plus was dropped and it was $10/month and it was ad supported. People actually seemed shocked by such a concept, despite this is what people have been paying for with cable and satellite for decades.
But in this case, his argument makes no sense because the networks themselves put up most shows online for free, the day after broadcast (albeit, sometimes with advertising).
So if the networks put them up for free, why is it detrimental to syndication sales to put them up for 99 cents? Besides, the syndication sales don't even usually start until a show has racked up 100 episodes (about four seasons).
The answer to this is to let Apple put them up for 99 cents, but they can only keep up each episode for a limited time (up to a few months). Most people willing to pay for a TV show generally want to see the show only when it's new anyway, and they're paying the price either because they've missed the broadcast or because they want to view it on a different device.
If he wants to make a valid argument, he could argue that 99 cent online sales kill sales of DVD/Blu-ray compilations, but that could also be partially resolved by the time limit on online sales. Besides, the people willing to pay 99 cents for an episode may well not be willing to pay $35 for a season.
I agree that there are a lot of crap networks out there that I would rather not subscribe to, but I do because it's part of a package.
That being said though, I think what a lot of people don't realize is, if TV went 100% a-la-carte, then once you've watched everything once, how do you find out about new shows? With no commercials, how you find out about new content. For my household, 99% of the new content we find out about is either: 1. Commercials or 2. friends/colleagues. That's how I heard about LOST, a commercial. We hardly ever search for new content via internet. Granted every once in a while i stumble on something. But that's about it. If it went the iTunes model, you'd start hearing crickets coming out of your ATV after a while IMO.
Additionally, without Ads and cable/satv/dish companies, we would have no TV to watch. They play a huge part in the broadcasting of new shows. And I think that's what all the Media Giants are afraid will happen. If that happens where to commercials/previews fit in? We all hate those forced video ads that pop-up and we instantly close them if that option is available, but i digress...
Plus Mr. Pig, I find it surprising that you can't watch a movie more than once? You must have a very short attention span. Granted I don't have a huge library, and I thin it out every once in a while, but I do keep at least 50 of my favorites in the collection at all times. With Netflix, I find myself buying less and less movies, because for the price we pay, I can stand to rent movies a couple times.
How to find out about new shows? Like you, I have found out about good shows from friends/coworkers. I also check websites to see what is new. Solution: The cable companies and/or Apple should host a free "You-Tubish" preview channel, complete with clips from each show/movie. Have Apple make the channel available for free in itunes.
The problem I have with ads? Let's see......I would pay $100.00 a month for a "package" containing hundreds of channels - most of which are crap. Most of the money from my monthly bill would finance junk such as "news" channels, MTV, etc. If I really want news, I would go online. I avoid getting my news from a Media Giant. Why else do you think few people buy newspapers anymore?
Oh, and when I view a 2 hour movie, one third (or more) of that time is devoted to commercials. And the cable/satellite companies turn up the volume on your TV real loud whenever an ad runs. Brilliant. Remember the argument for cable TV when it first came out? "It's wonderful! For a monthly fee, you get all these channels and NO commercials!"
I do not watch a movie more than once. I am able to do it, but I choose not to. I get bored watching re-runs. I do make exceptions to this rule: "Scrooge" and "It's a Wonderful Life" need to be seen every year around Christmastime. Nature documentaries by David Attenborough and the old Wild Kingdom series can also be watched over and over.
Netflix sounds like a good deal. I would want to watch Netflix movies/shows via an internet connection. But the lack of parental controls is keeping me away. There is NO WAY to prevent a child from selecting any single movie or genre of movies. For example, if I do not want my child to watch horror movies, there is no way I, as a parent, can block that out.
Legally Apple can not do this (at least in the US they can't). Last year Real Networks lost their court case when they were sued for doing just this. And Kaleidoscope won their court case on a contractual technicality only to lose on appeal.
Solipsism is arguing from the Networks point of view. Put yourself in the Networks position. Which would you rather have, large steady payments or a bunch or micro payments? It's not surprising that the Networks prefer the large steady payments.
I like your idea of the preview channel. Or they could just place previews in front of rented shows/movies, like DVDs do.
Speaking of additional content. Does anyone know if movies and TV in iTunes and Netflix offer streaming speacial feature disc content, like commentaries, out-takes, interviews like on physical DVD's/BD's? Personally, that's 75% of my decision for purchase. what kinds of special features and Commentary tracks are available.
How to find out about new shows? Like you, I have found out about good shows from friends/coworkers. I also check websites to see what is new. Solution: The cable companies and/or Apple should host a free "You-Tubish" preview channel, complete with clips from each show/movie. Have Apple make the channel available for free in itunes.
The problem I have with ads? Let's see......I would pay $100.00 a month for a "package" containing hundreds of channels - most of which are crap. Most of the money from my monthly bill would finance junk such as "news" channels, MTV, etc. If I really want news, I would go online. I avoid getting my news from a Media Giant. Why else do you think few people buy newspapers anymore?
Oh, and when I view a 2 hour movie, one third (or more) of that time is devoted to commercials. And the cable/satellite companies turn up the volume on your TV real loud whenever an ad runs. Brilliant. Remember the argument for cable TV when it first came out? "It's wonderful! For a monthly fee, you get all these channels and NO commercials!"
I do not watch a movie more than once. I am able to do it, but I choose not to. I get bored watching re-runs. I do make exceptions to this rule: "Scrooge" and "It's a Wonderful Life" need to be seen every year around Christmastime. Nature documentaries by David Attenborough and the old Wild Kingdom series can also be watched over and over.
Netflix sounds like a good deal. I would want to watch Netflix movies/shows via an internet connection. But the lack of parental controls is keeping me away. There is NO WAY to prevent a child from selecting any single movie or genre of movies. For example, if I do not want my child to watch horror movies, there is no way I, as a parent, can block that out.
It?s pretty amazing how we seem to ignore these things. I remember when Hulu Plus was dropped and it was $10/month and it was ad supported. People actually seemed shocked by such a concept, despite this is what people have been paying for with cable and satellite for decades.
People don't realize the cost involved in putting together a decent drama show in hopes you can capture an audience for more than a few episodes. Each successful show needs to bring in enough revenue to not only cover its costs, but also the costs of the attempts that failed plus enough profit to make it worth taking the risk. Take away the profit, and they will stop taking risks, and you will end up with a bunch of Jersey Shore shows for your Apple TV. And people will blame the networks for not producing any shows.
Here is a clue, the ATV is worthless without content. The content providers don't need Apple, Apple needs their content, so NBC CBS and Time Warner have a pretty good negotiating possition. Pay them what they want or ATV will fail.
People don't realize the cost involved in putting together a decent drama show in hopes you can capture an audience for more than a few episodes. Each successful show needs to bring in enough revenue to not only cover its costs, but also the costs of the attempts that failed plus enough profit to make it worth taking the risk. Take away the profit, and they will stop taking risks, and you will end up with a bunch of Jersey Shore shows for your Apple TV. And people will blame the networks for not producing any shows.
Here is a clue, the ATV is worthless without content. The content providers don't need Apple, Apple needs their content, so NBC CBS and Time Warner have a pretty good negotiating possition. Pay them what they want or ATV will fail.
How much did it cost to produce one episode of the TV show ER? Was it 45 million? Why so much?
Risks? What risks? Thanks to endless re-runs, even TV shows such as Gilligan's Island continue to make the owners of that show very wealthy. When was that show, in 1967? Was making that show a risk. How many other investors can continue to make money by reselling the same stale product an endless number of times. And today, you do not even need talent nor good looks to be on TV anymore.
Actors (even bad ones) can earn tens of millions of dollars per movie, or they earn just as much by starring in a TV show that lasts a couple of seasons. Why. And then they end up blowing huge chunks of it on drugs while flaunting a bizarre, alternative lifestyle. Please tell me that the people involved in making TV shows and movies actually worked very hard to EARN their money. Does anyone think those people would starve if everyone were to abandon cable for streaming content at $10 a month. Maybe they would be forced to buy crack instead of coke.
ATV is worthless without content. Agreed. There is no law that states that content needs to be made in the USA. Nothing else is made here, so why should TV and movies be the exception. One example of many: Maybe SJ could buy rights to all the Mexican soap operas and dub them in English for itunes. My point is that maybe people would enjoy watching TV shows from other countries (both dubbed and undubbed).
Here is a clue, the ATV is worthless without content. The content providers don't need Apple, Apple needs their content, so NBC CBS and Time Warner have a pretty good negotiating possition. Pay them what they want or ATV will fail.
Yes, the ATV needs content. But it doesn't need network television rental content, which is the issue here. There is plenty of other content and, like many, my interest in ATV is centered on streaming from other iDevices, and the future app store for it.
Bewkes was quite clear, Apple can't just "pay them what they want". They don't want an ala-carte rental, or even a purchase, model. They want a different business model and episode price isn't the issue. I suspect the only way Apple could get all the networks on board is to offer series bundles (hundreds of shows) on a $70+/month subscription basis. In other words, become a cable network, just through iTunes over the internet. And even that might not satisfy them.
The Networks already got their money out of me and many others twice already. I buy their content on physical media. First I purchased on DVD, now I'm starting to replace some on BD. Why couldn't it be imported to iTunes the same way that I can with Music CD's? That's my point, It doesn't make any sense to me. They got money out of me, sometimes twice or even three times over, in some cases I had VHS as well. That's where my greed comment comes in. I don't see where you're getting steady payments vs. micro payments from.
We are talking two separate things here. First, ripping DVDs. Both the Studios and the Labels want to lock down their content. But unfortunately for the Labels, CDs are not locked down nor encrypted. Furthermore Congress passed the Home Audio Recording Act which made it legal for users to rip CDs in order to make backup copies. Learning from this the DVDForum (acting in behalf of the Studios) encrypted their DVDs and got Congress to pass a law (the DMCA) making it illegal to break the DVD encryption. To further their DVD lockdown the DVDForum has kept their DVD License private and confidential.
One of the license provisions is that a licensee can not copy the DVD onto other storage devices. It was this provision that Real Networks broke and was sued for. Kaleidoscope won their original court case due to the confidentiality of the DVD License and the unwillingness of the DVDForum to share it with them before the license purchase. The original judge ruled that the license provisions not shared prior to the purchase was unenforceable. The judge was overruled on appeal.
The point with the large steady payments vrs. the bunch of micro payments has to do with who is paying the networks for their content. Currently the broadcasters, cable companies and satellite companies are paying huge amounts of cash to the networks just for the right to distribute the networks content. Now Apple is coming along with a consignment model where the networks give Apple their content and Apple than sells/rents it to us, the individual consumers, giving a portion of each sell back to the network. Now which do you think the networks would prefer, large payments from the content distributers or portions of small individual sells to the final consumers? Look at the clothing industry, who does better, the factories selling to the department stores or the seamstresses selling from consignment shops?
We are talking two separate things here. First, ripping DVDs. Both the Studios and the Labels want to lock down their content. But unfortunately for the Labels, CDs are not locked down nor encrypted. Furthermore Congress passed the Home Audio Recording Act which made it legal for users to rip CDs in order to make backup copies. Learning from this the DVDForum (acting in behalf of the Studios) encrypted their DVDs and got Congress to pass a law (the DMCA) making it illegal to break the DVD encryption. To further their DVD lockdown the DVDForum has kept their DVD License private and confidential.
One of the license provisions is that a licensee can not copy the DVD onto other storage devices. It was this provision that Real Networks broke and was sued for. Kaleidoscope won their original court case due to the confidentiality of the DVD License and the unwillingness of the DVDForum to share it with them before the license purchase. The original judge ruled that the license provisions not shared prior to the purchase was unenforceable. The judge was overruled on appeal.
The point with the large steady payments vrs. the bunch of micro payments has to do with who is paying the networks for their content. Currently the broadcasters, cable companies and satellite companies are paying huge amounts of cash to the networks just for the right to distribute the networks content. Now Apple is coming along with a consignment model where the networks give Apple their content and Apple than sells/rents it to us, the individual consumers, giving a portion of each sell back to the network. Now which do you think the networks would prefer, large payments from the content distributers or portions of small individual sells to the final consumers? Look at the clothing industry, who does better, the factories selling to the department stores or the seamstresses selling from consignment shops?
I love how you're stating all this stuff as if I didn't already say this an much more simplistic way just a few posts above. Just proves that you and others just don't read the post, you skim them. Then try to insert your own spin on the conversations to make it all sound like these thoughts originated by you.