Not harsh, just accurate. The argument is way off base.
Quote:
As for it just being a couple months old...kinda, but iTunes for TV has been around a lot longer and this is only a tweek on it. Are they even advertising it or the apple tv? I would be more optimistic if they started advertising, that would be a sign of commitment.
Until movies came out in large numbers, and for Apple, the two thousand they now have are large numbers compared to what they had before, and rentals, the video section was just treading water. It served to say that Apple was interested, but without content, there was nothing much they could do. Even so, they outsold all other services. Now, we'll see the trend move much more quickly. But it will still take a couple of YEARS to make a big dent in Apple's bottom line, not a couple of months. That's like asking a baby to get up and run before it can walk. It's just in the crawl stage now.
Quote:
I am not taking the position that apple needs to make much of a direct profit from this, but the movie industry certainly does if they want to have the content.
The movie industry, just like the music industry is making a damn good profit off iTunes. It's been shown several times that they get more from iTunes per sale than they get from any other service.
Remember that not only do they not have to press disks, pack jewel cases and printed liner notes, but they have no distribution costs, and they don't have to take back unsold copies and destroy them. Don't believe their crying. They're doing just fine.
What the content providers are concerned about is that downloads are not growing at the pace that hard copy sales are shrinking, so they are trying to make up the difference by charging more for the downloads. There two trains in motion here. One is that they want to make up the losses in hard copy, and two is to try to slow down the growth of downloads with the hope that it will keep hard copy sales numbers up. Neither course of action is going to work.
Quote:
Maybe these numbers are good considering the lack of advertising, but think how much problem they have had with the TV networks over even greater revenue. Am I "completely out of whack" for hoping that they could get to at least that level?
Hoping and expecting are two very different things.
I hope Apple will sell 20 million Macs in 2009, but I don't expect them to.
True, Apple did say this.. But that was before they were selling 1 billion songs every four months.
If this pace continues or increases it becomes a minimum of 3 billion songs sold per year.. If Apple gets a 10% profit, that's $300 million per year in music sales alone, even a 5% profit is 150 million per year. Both figures are definitely something to regard.
10% no way. Apple has used the 5% number, and thats what I believe. By keeping costs under control, they can make that profit when selling in very large numbers. Services selling far less can't even reach the 5% number, and it's believed that iTunes is the only service making a consistent profit without the content providers giving the content for less than Apple gets it.
Interesting to finally see a number on apple's videos.
So they offer 22k titles, compared with the 10k for Netflix downloads. So much for the assumed Netflix advantage there.
And is a pace of 18 million movie downloads per year so bad? Seems decent for an industry in its infancy and likely to grow pretty quickly over the next few years.
Isn't the most important factor that apple is the number one video/movie download site (by far), not whether the raw numbers seem big enough? As long as Apple is on top and growing, I don't see any reason for concern. Like studios are going to abandon the most successful seller in favor of smaller ones? No way.
Apple's biggest hurdle is that they are SO successful, studios are afraid of giving them too much content and them monopolizing the market.
Firstly, All of your Apple devices will play iTunes media..
Secondly, your Blu-Ray discs have just as much DRM and are more limited than iTunes content as they won't play on anything other than your PS3 or another Blu-Ray player.
I do understand what you mean by the quality isn't there yet with iTunes HD, but it is still very good for a rental.
Those are a couple of really condradictory statements: "Firstly, All of your Apple devices will play iTunes media.." That was his point. iTunes DRM will only play on Apple devices. That's why I won't purchase from iTunes. I usually buy CDs and then if something is cheap on Amazon's mp3 store, I'll buy that (I bought Coldplay's "Rush of Blood to the Head" and "Parachutes" over the past 2 days for $1.99 each. Thanks Amazon!).
I have an iPod, a PSP, a Tivo and a PS3 and I want to be able to listen to my music on any of those devices. And except for the tiny portion that was purchased from iTunes, it all does.
I don't understand your comment about Blu-Ray: "...as they won't play on anything other than your PS3 or another Blu-Ray player." Except that unlike iTunes DRM, those discs aren't locked into only playing on one manufacturer's equipment. If my PS3 goes, I can go buy a Pioneer or Panasonic player. I don't know why you think someone would expect Blu-Ray discs to play on something than a Blu-Ray player.
Those are a couple of really condradictory statements: "Firstly, All of your Apple devices will play iTunes media.." That was his point. iTunes DRM will only play on Apple devices. That's why I won't purchase from iTunes. I usually buy CDs and then if something is cheap on Amazon's mp3 store, I'll buy that (I bought Coldplay's "Rush of Blood to the Head" and "Parachutes" over the past 2 days for $1.99 each. Thanks Amazon!).
I have an iPod, a PSP, a Tivo and a PS3 and I want to be able to listen to my music on any of those devices. And except for the tiny portion that was purchased from iTunes, it all does.
I don't understand your comment about Blu-Ray: "...as they won't play on anything other than your PS3 or another Blu-Ray player." Except that unlike iTunes DRM, those discs aren't locked into only playing on one manufacturer's equipment. If my PS3 goes, I can go buy a Pioneer or Panasonic player. I don't know why you think someone would expect Blu-Ray discs to play on something than a Blu-Ray player.
Actually, there is nothing contradictory in my statement..
Yes, iTunes media has DRM, but you have options, you can transfer that media from your computer (Mac or PC,) as well as an iPod, iPhone or Apple TV.. So you do have the option of portability and taking that content with you as well as watching it on the big screen at home.
Blu-Ray content also has DRM but it is more "limited" in that there is no portability offered. Sure, you can choose to buy a player from Sony, Pioneer or other, but they are essentially all the same type of device, a Blu-Ray player.. Most people don't buy multiple Blu-Ray players for different needs, but they do buy multiple home and portable devices for different purposes. You can't rip, burn or take Blu-Ray content with you on ANY brand music player or phone.
I dont know that they would turn anywhere. They might just say its not worth the bother. Any given studio couldnt possibly be getting more than 2-3 million from this. That is really small change considering the costs of generating it (lawyers for every movie signed over, administration).
Yeah, I echo the thought expressed earlier - this thing will never catch on..... NOT
Apple can play the waiting game. This is a much slower adoption process than music. I think most of those movies sold or rented goe to iPods. As the market matures, Apple TV takes off (if it does), iPhone sales soar and most importantly, the movie inventory increases drastically, Apple will be well positioned to benefit. I think 50 000 a day is important. It proves that there is a market and the studios will take note. These guys are looking to the future as much as anybody.
I liked all the shows you mentioned, but have never been to hulu or whatever they call it. I have a TiVo so what's the point?
What if you get into a show after it's been on a bit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
So they offer 22k titles, compared with the 10k for Netflix downloads. So much for the assumed Netflix advantage there.
How many of those 22k are for rent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple
Any word on NBC's outside attempts with NBC.com, Hulu, Amazon and Zune Marketplace or whatever other distribution devices NBC has chosen? I wonder if the execs at NBC are still trying to figure a way to come back to iTunes while saving face or if they feel they are justly compensated through the ad supported distribution means they currently support with their programming.
I think it's an attempt at a power play, that NBC probably doesn't want Apple to get too powerful. I doubt they're making as much money with internet ads as they are on broadcast. One estimate that seems credible is that broadcast TV gets about $0.25 in ad revenue per half hour per viewer. Income through iTunes is something like $1.40 per episode.
Most of those 22k are television shows and at $1.99 are cheaper than a rental.. Of the movies offered, (and correct me if I'm wrong,) I believe they are all available as rentals.
Guess i wont bother putting my 2 cents up anymore. Your opinion = truth , unless that argument also "has no credence"
Come on, mbene, stand up for your opinions.
Mel is gruff and opinionated (and relentless), but if you think you are right try to convince him/us. That is part of what makes this interesting. If you think your argument doesn't stand up, bow out gracefully--there is no point in getting huffy...
Guess i wont bother putting my 2 cents up anymore. Your opinion = truth , unless that argument also "has no credence"
You have a viewpoint, he has a viewpoint. Who is correct or incorrect is mostly based on who can establish a better argument. Don't stop posting, but create a better argument for your POV when challenged. The same way you might reply to another whose reply you don't agree with.
Everyone else reading this thread is the audience. You might be thinking that you aren't here for a debate. But you are. You made a post to state a point. If what you were posting was common knowledge and agreed with by everyone then there would have been no need to make the post because things like "I like turtles" can't be unproven and "cloud often look white" is generally accepted as fact.
If you think your initial point is still valid or that Melgross is wrong then use Google to find sources that can backup your point or invalidate his. Most of us are here to learn something, so school us.
Most of those 22k are television shows and at $1.99 are cheaper than a rental.. Of the movies offered, (and correct me if I'm wrong,) I believe they are all available as rentals.
I think the story changed, it previously said 22,000 films and 20,000 TV episodes, now it's saying 20,000 TV episodes and 2,000 films.
$1.99 an episode is not cheaper than a rental, unless you compare it to renting a full movie. One DVD of a TV show often has eight episodes.
Shows on stations you don't get. Episodes that Tivo misses because your power goes out or other problems.
Sure, Tivo makes this less appealing. But there are plenty of people who don't have tivo, or don't even have cable.
I've had a Tivo for many, many years; a DirecTivo to be precise. The last two were even eventually hacked to allow transferring the shows off the Tivo but that process is tedious at best and the video quality of over-compressed MPEG2, at a visibly crappy non-scalable resolution on an HDTV, isn't so appealing. But that doesn't compensate for the Tivo's hard drive failures or the disk filling up and having to delete stuff to make more room, seeing as Tivo has never seen fit to add a feature that tells you how much space/recording time is left, at least on the DTivo devices up to the latest Series 2 software. (Um.. duh?)
On the ATV, my girlfriend and I have recently been watching (or rewatching) Deadwood, Rome, (soon) The Pretender, and Star Trek: Enterprise. I could go buy the DVD sets for those but it would cost a lot more (especially for the HBO shows -- sheesh) and then it takes time to either copy or rip the content to media that all the computers/AppleTV can get to and I have better things to do. I've also recently been trying to reduce the physical space that my DVD collection consumes so no point in buying big boxes of TV show seasons. With the exception of darkly-lit scenes in Deadwood and Rome, the H.264 compression/resolution-scaling hasn't been noticable on a 42" HD screen. I chalk that up to HBO providing poor-quality material (probably the same data used for the DVDs).
And then there's the possibility of becoming interested in other TV shows that we've never seen before. It's a lot cheaper and more convenient to sit on the couch and push "Purchase for $1.99", then "OK", then "Play" than it is to even bother with Netflix and wait a day or five for the discs to show up. Nevermind going to the store, if it's not 3am or whatever, burning $4.50/gal gas (California here) in the process, etc.
As far as the ATV goes, there's entertainment to be found besides TV shows and movies. My g/f, a near-technophobe, has recently discovered the large selection of French language podcasts, for example, and has really been enjoying them. She's started browsing the other podcasts as well, with much interest. And the best part of it is, we can do this together without huddling around a computer screen/keyboard/mouse.
I considered a Mac Mini but the requisite dollar/time investment wasn't in its favor at the time. Maybe in the future, though.
30 minute shows are about 22 minutes long. They tend to have 6 to 8 episodes per disk.
One hour shows are about 42 minutes long. They tend to have 3 to 4 episodes per disk.
Ah true... 30 minute shows are generally sit-coms, which I despise and never watch.. So obviously, I've never rented a sit-com disc. Thanks for correcting.
Comments
pretty harsh imo
Not harsh, just accurate. The argument is way off base.
As for it just being a couple months old...kinda, but iTunes for TV has been around a lot longer and this is only a tweek on it. Are they even advertising it or the apple tv? I would be more optimistic if they started advertising, that would be a sign of commitment.
Until movies came out in large numbers, and for Apple, the two thousand they now have are large numbers compared to what they had before, and rentals, the video section was just treading water. It served to say that Apple was interested, but without content, there was nothing much they could do. Even so, they outsold all other services. Now, we'll see the trend move much more quickly. But it will still take a couple of YEARS to make a big dent in Apple's bottom line, not a couple of months. That's like asking a baby to get up and run before it can walk. It's just in the crawl stage now.
I am not taking the position that apple needs to make much of a direct profit from this, but the movie industry certainly does if they want to have the content.
The movie industry, just like the music industry is making a damn good profit off iTunes. It's been shown several times that they get more from iTunes per sale than they get from any other service.
Remember that not only do they not have to press disks, pack jewel cases and printed liner notes, but they have no distribution costs, and they don't have to take back unsold copies and destroy them. Don't believe their crying. They're doing just fine.
What the content providers are concerned about is that downloads are not growing at the pace that hard copy sales are shrinking, so they are trying to make up the difference by charging more for the downloads. There two trains in motion here. One is that they want to make up the losses in hard copy, and two is to try to slow down the growth of downloads with the hope that it will keep hard copy sales numbers up. Neither course of action is going to work.
Maybe these numbers are good considering the lack of advertising, but think how much problem they have had with the TV networks over even greater revenue. Am I "completely out of whack" for hoping that they could get to at least that level?
Hoping and expecting are two very different things.
I hope Apple will sell 20 million Macs in 2009, but I don't expect them to.
True, Apple did say this.. But that was before they were selling 1 billion songs every four months.
If this pace continues or increases it becomes a minimum of 3 billion songs sold per year.. If Apple gets a 10% profit, that's $300 million per year in music sales alone, even a 5% profit is 150 million per year. Both figures are definitely something to regard.
10% no way. Apple has used the 5% number, and thats what I believe. By keeping costs under control, they can make that profit when selling in very large numbers. Services selling far less can't even reach the 5% number, and it's believed that iTunes is the only service making a consistent profit without the content providers giving the content for less than Apple gets it.
So they offer 22k titles, compared with the 10k for Netflix downloads. So much for the assumed Netflix advantage there.
And is a pace of 18 million movie downloads per year so bad? Seems decent for an industry in its infancy and likely to grow pretty quickly over the next few years.
Isn't the most important factor that apple is the number one video/movie download site (by far), not whether the raw numbers seem big enough? As long as Apple is on top and growing, I don't see any reason for concern. Like studios are going to abandon the most successful seller in favor of smaller ones? No way.
Apple's biggest hurdle is that they are SO successful, studios are afraid of giving them too much content and them monopolizing the market.
I have a TiVo so what's the point?
Shows on stations you don't get. Episodes that Tivo misses because your power goes out or other problems.
Sure, Tivo makes this less appealing. But there are plenty of people who don't have tivo, or don't even have cable.
Guess i wont bother putting my 2 cents up anymore. Your opinion = truth , unless that argument also "has no credence"
Firstly, All of your Apple devices will play iTunes media..
Secondly, your Blu-Ray discs have just as much DRM and are more limited than iTunes content as they won't play on anything other than your PS3 or another Blu-Ray player.
I do understand what you mean by the quality isn't there yet with iTunes HD, but it is still very good for a rental.
Those are a couple of really condradictory statements: "Firstly, All of your Apple devices will play iTunes media.." That was his point. iTunes DRM will only play on Apple devices. That's why I won't purchase from iTunes. I usually buy CDs and then if something is cheap on Amazon's mp3 store, I'll buy that (I bought Coldplay's "Rush of Blood to the Head" and "Parachutes" over the past 2 days for $1.99 each. Thanks Amazon!).
I have an iPod, a PSP, a Tivo and a PS3 and I want to be able to listen to my music on any of those devices. And except for the tiny portion that was purchased from iTunes, it all does.
I don't understand your comment about Blu-Ray: "...as they won't play on anything other than your PS3 or another Blu-Ray player." Except that unlike iTunes DRM, those discs aren't locked into only playing on one manufacturer's equipment. If my PS3 goes, I can go buy a Pioneer or Panasonic player. I don't know why you think someone would expect Blu-Ray discs to play on something than a Blu-Ray player.
Those are a couple of really condradictory statements: "Firstly, All of your Apple devices will play iTunes media.." That was his point. iTunes DRM will only play on Apple devices. That's why I won't purchase from iTunes. I usually buy CDs and then if something is cheap on Amazon's mp3 store, I'll buy that (I bought Coldplay's "Rush of Blood to the Head" and "Parachutes" over the past 2 days for $1.99 each. Thanks Amazon!).
I have an iPod, a PSP, a Tivo and a PS3 and I want to be able to listen to my music on any of those devices. And except for the tiny portion that was purchased from iTunes, it all does.
I don't understand your comment about Blu-Ray: "...as they won't play on anything other than your PS3 or another Blu-Ray player." Except that unlike iTunes DRM, those discs aren't locked into only playing on one manufacturer's equipment. If my PS3 goes, I can go buy a Pioneer or Panasonic player. I don't know why you think someone would expect Blu-Ray discs to play on something than a Blu-Ray player.
Actually, there is nothing contradictory in my statement..
Yes, iTunes media has DRM, but you have options, you can transfer that media from your computer (Mac or PC,) as well as an iPod, iPhone or Apple TV.. So you do have the option of portability and taking that content with you as well as watching it on the big screen at home.
Blu-Ray content also has DRM but it is more "limited" in that there is no portability offered. Sure, you can choose to buy a player from Sony, Pioneer or other, but they are essentially all the same type of device, a Blu-Ray player.. Most people don't buy multiple Blu-Ray players for different needs, but they do buy multiple home and portable devices for different purposes. You can't rip, burn or take Blu-Ray content with you on ANY brand music player or phone.
I dont know that they would turn anywhere. They might just say its not worth the bother. Any given studio couldnt possibly be getting more than 2-3 million from this. That is really small change considering the costs of generating it (lawyers for every movie signed over, administration).
Yeah, I echo the thought expressed earlier - this thing will never catch on..... NOT
Apple can play the waiting game. This is a much slower adoption process than music. I think most of those movies sold or rented goe to iPods. As the market matures, Apple TV takes off (if it does), iPhone sales soar and most importantly, the movie inventory increases drastically, Apple will be well positioned to benefit. I think 50 000 a day is important. It proves that there is a market and the studios will take note. These guys are looking to the future as much as anybody.
I liked all the shows you mentioned, but have never been to hulu or whatever they call it. I have a TiVo so what's the point?
What if you get into a show after it's been on a bit?
So they offer 22k titles, compared with the 10k for Netflix downloads. So much for the assumed Netflix advantage there.
How many of those 22k are for rent?
Any word on NBC's outside attempts with NBC.com, Hulu, Amazon and Zune Marketplace or whatever other distribution devices NBC has chosen? I wonder if the execs at NBC are still trying to figure a way to come back to iTunes while saving face or if they feel they are justly compensated through the ad supported distribution means they currently support with their programming.
I think it's an attempt at a power play, that NBC probably doesn't want Apple to get too powerful. I doubt they're making as much money with internet ads as they are on broadcast. One estimate that seems credible is that broadcast TV gets about $0.25 in ad revenue per half hour per viewer. Income through iTunes is something like $1.40 per episode.
How many of those 22k are for rent?
Most of those 22k are television shows and at $1.99 are cheaper than a rental.. Of the movies offered, (and correct me if I'm wrong,) I believe they are all available as rentals.
Mel,
Guess i wont bother putting my 2 cents up anymore. Your opinion = truth , unless that argument also "has no credence"
Come on, mbene, stand up for your opinions.
Mel is gruff and opinionated (and relentless), but if you think you are right try to convince him/us. That is part of what makes this interesting. If you think your argument doesn't stand up, bow out gracefully--there is no point in getting huffy...
Mel,
Guess i wont bother putting my 2 cents up anymore. Your opinion = truth , unless that argument also "has no credence"
You have a viewpoint, he has a viewpoint. Who is correct or incorrect is mostly based on who can establish a better argument. Don't stop posting, but create a better argument for your POV when challenged. The same way you might reply to another whose reply you don't agree with.
Everyone else reading this thread is the audience. You might be thinking that you aren't here for a debate. But you are. You made a post to state a point. If what you were posting was common knowledge and agreed with by everyone then there would have been no need to make the post because things like "I like turtles" can't be unproven and "cloud often look white" is generally accepted as fact.
If you think your initial point is still valid or that Melgross is wrong then use Google to find sources that can backup your point or invalidate his. Most of us are here to learn something, so school us.
Most of those 22k are television shows and at $1.99 are cheaper than a rental.. Of the movies offered, (and correct me if I'm wrong,) I believe they are all available as rentals.
I think the story changed, it previously said 22,000 films and 20,000 TV episodes, now it's saying 20,000 TV episodes and 2,000 films.
$1.99 an episode is not cheaper than a rental, unless you compare it to renting a full movie. One DVD of a TV show often has eight episodes.
Shows on stations you don't get. Episodes that Tivo misses because your power goes out or other problems.
Sure, Tivo makes this less appealing. But there are plenty of people who don't have tivo, or don't even have cable.
I've had a Tivo for many, many years; a DirecTivo to be precise. The last two were even eventually hacked to allow transferring the shows off the Tivo but that process is tedious at best and the video quality of over-compressed MPEG2, at a visibly crappy non-scalable resolution on an HDTV, isn't so appealing. But that doesn't compensate for the Tivo's hard drive failures or the disk filling up and having to delete stuff to make more room, seeing as Tivo has never seen fit to add a feature that tells you how much space/recording time is left, at least on the DTivo devices up to the latest Series 2 software. (Um.. duh?)
On the ATV, my girlfriend and I have recently been watching (or rewatching) Deadwood, Rome, (soon) The Pretender, and Star Trek: Enterprise. I could go buy the DVD sets for those but it would cost a lot more (especially for the HBO shows -- sheesh) and then it takes time to either copy or rip the content to media that all the computers/AppleTV can get to and I have better things to do. I've also recently been trying to reduce the physical space that my DVD collection consumes so no point in buying big boxes of TV show seasons. With the exception of darkly-lit scenes in Deadwood and Rome, the H.264 compression/resolution-scaling hasn't been noticable on a 42" HD screen. I chalk that up to HBO providing poor-quality material (probably the same data used for the DVDs).
And then there's the possibility of becoming interested in other TV shows that we've never seen before. It's a lot cheaper and more convenient to sit on the couch and push "Purchase for $1.99", then "OK", then "Play" than it is to even bother with Netflix and wait a day or five for the discs to show up. Nevermind going to the store, if it's not 3am or whatever, burning $4.50/gal gas (California here) in the process, etc.
As far as the ATV goes, there's entertainment to be found besides TV shows and movies. My g/f, a near-technophobe, has recently discovered the large selection of French language podcasts, for example, and has really been enjoying them. She's started browsing the other podcasts as well, with much interest. And the best part of it is, we can do this together without huddling around a computer screen/keyboard/mouse.
I considered a Mac Mini but the requisite dollar/time investment wasn't in its favor at the time. Maybe in the future, though.
Just my $0.02 USD.
I think the story changed, it previously said 22,000 films and 20,000 TV episodes, now it's saying 20,000 TV episodes and 2,000 films.
$1.99 an episode is not cheaper than a rental. One DVD of a TV show often has eight episodes.
Actually, the majority of them have four episodes.
But true, when you look at it that way, $1.99 is not cheaper, but it is certainly more convenient if you just missed one episode..
I considered a Mac Mini but the requisite dollar/time investment wasn't in its favor at the time. Maybe in the future, though.
Just my $0.02 USD.
Also, the Mac Mini won't play HD content from the iTunes store, only an Apple TV will.
Actually, the majority of them have four episodes.
But true, when you look at it that way, $1.99 is not cheaper, but it is certainly more convenient if you just missed one episode..
30 minute shows are about 22 minutes long. They tend to have 6 to 8 episodes per disk.
One hour shows are about 42 minutes long. They tend to have 3 to 4 episodes per disk.
Actually, the majority of them have four episodes.
But true, when you look at it that way, $1.99 is not cheaper, but it is certainly more convenient if you just missed one episode..
On hour long shows, yes, it's four. If it's half hour shows, then it's often eight.
30 minute shows are about 22 minutes long. They tend to have 6 to 8 episodes per disk.
One hour shows are about 42 minutes long. They tend to have 3 to 4 episodes per disk.
Ah true... 30 minute shows are generally sit-coms, which I despise and never watch.. So obviously, I've never rented a sit-com disc. Thanks for correcting.