The big savings is in the fact that most shows are not on all year round, but you're paying for cable year round. Other benefits include, no commercials, and "owning" the media (ie. if its a show you would have bought on DVD that is no longer necessary, unless you want the bonus features)
So for example:
Lost Season Pass: $34.99
Ugly Betty Season Pass: $34.99
CSI Season Pass: $44.99
CSI: Miami Season Pass: $39.99
House Season Pass: $42.99
24 Season Pass: $44.99
Top Chef Season Pass: 28.99
Daily Show Multi-Pass(= 1 Month) $9.99 * 12 = $119.88
Total: $391.81/year
the problem is that with the exeption of the daily show and Top chef (whatever that is) everything you mentioned is on Over the air antenna channels, so just set up a Myth box, record it in HD for the big screen and compress it to postage stamp size for the ipod: I want HD and DD5.1 and the option to play it bak on a non-apple device, like WMC via xbox if I am going to pay $2/Ep
I can't wait to see the windows media/ proprietary/ garbled mess of DRM-ed videos these companies are going to churn out... and guess what, a great new source for pirated video once their DRM is cracked within a few weeks.
Yes, because I can play my iTunes videos everywhere, just yesterday, I loaded a small clip of one onto my cell phone, and I have also burned them to DVD to watch on my bigscreen...wait, Apple UNFAIR Play cant do this?
Newsflash fanboiz: ALL online distrobution right now is a "proprietary/ garbled mess of DRM-ed videos ", apple just happens to be the least restrictive, think of iTunes like a looser fitting pair of handcuffs
back to your regularly scheduled Kool-Aid overdosing
This right here is exactly why I don't have NBC HD on our Charter Cable. God dang NBC thinks they should charge the cable companies a premium for having their HD feed. Charter says never so no NBC HD for us in the near future.
So now I can't have The Office in HD or portable, excellent job NBC, way to screw your customers. Bittorrent's here I come. And I bought Season 1-3 off of Itunes.
Dont blame NBC fot that, that is a desicion that was made by the owner of the local affiliate, there are a few companies like LIN that own a ton of network affiliates and run them like total jerks, for example, LIN refuses to put WLFI on satalite because they want more money than anyone is willing to pay, so 5 counties in Indiana, where antenna reception from Indy isnt great, cant get ANY locals on satalite and teh only cable option is comcast...
Let see $1.99 for each episode times 24 episodes is $47.76 and I sure like the music companies they got at least 75% of the gross for $35.82. That not bad considering people could record it free using a VCR or EyeTV. But $4.99 for each episode times 24 episodes is $119.76 are they insane!
I totally agree and I am sure their greed will be evident in a financial report. "Lost" season 3, including 6 hours bonus material, on DVD at Best Buy is only 49.99 and we would be able to rip it to a bit rate of our choosing with no DRM. Even though Apple lost 30% of its TV Show downloads I applaud them for not buckling to Universal's demands, as well as, not selling any more shows when the new season starts. Doesn't Universal know true video iPods are just around the corner?
The thing that I don't see in any of the posts or spelled out in the press releases is the reason for the increase in price. This could have as much to do with a switch to HD content as it does with wanting more for their content, especially the most popular shows.
Looking at Amazon Heroes season one on DVD has a retail price of $59.98 (discounted to $36.99) while the HD DVD has a retail price of $99 (discounted to $69.95). iTMS sells the season pass for $42.99, but you get it a lot sooner than you can get the DVD, thus NBC and their advertisers could be trying to account for lost ad revenue for the purchased downloads as people buy the ad free version rather than watching the network version with the ads. Sure NBC still makes money off the sales, but if the advertisers see shrinking ratings due to purchases then the network makes less money from ad sales which so they can cut the cost of production or increase the price of the retail ad free video to cover the loss in ad revenue which pays for the production. Also if they have high video sales then they could expect that the price the show gets for syndication would drop since the pool of likely viewers would be smaller.
The point is that the reason that a high quality show can be sold for $1.99 and still be profitable is that it is subsidized by ad revenue at some point. As long as the retail sale of these shows does not cut into revenue then it is another way to extend the profitability of the production. In the old days that was done with syndication, now they have added DVD's and have started out with downloads. But traditional TV ad revenue is going down throughout the industry as more people move to DVR's, DVD's, and downloads.
NBC and others are looking for a model that they can thrive with in the new u-Tube world, just as Apple is. It's going to take some trial and error to get it right, that is why Steve described the AppleTV as a Hobby, it is an experiment. I think that NBC has some problems with the streaming model that they seems to be moving to, because as Apple is working to get the video off of the computer and onto the big screen it looks like the broadcaster is doing just the opposite. I think that a better move for both would be to link Apple TV to NBC's streaming service for an ad based distribution, and hold off of the commercial sale of DVD and downloads until after the season is over so that it is not competing with the ad supported broadcast/streaming of the show.
Yes, because I can play my iTunes videos everywhere, just yesterday, I loaded a small clip of one onto my cell phone, and I have also burned them to DVD to watch on my bigscreen...wait, Apple UNFAIR Play cant do this?
Newsflash fanboiz: ALL online distrobution right now is a "proprietary/ garbled mess of DRM-ed videos ", apple just happens to be the least restrictive, think of iTunes like a looser fitting pair of handcuffs
back to your regularly scheduled Kool-Aid overdosing
I don't know why the tone here on AI Forums has gone a bit sour. Even on big rants it used to be about the technology and the issues. Now everything is either "fanboy-ish" or the "lone voice of anti-Apple sanity". ...As I get back to a real job, it is no wonder that I spend less time posting on the forums.
Anyways, yes, everything has DRM, oh, except stuff that DOESN'T, like iTunes Plus. It is very clear that if there was non-DRM videos Apple would be happy with it and it might actually *reduce* piracy but anything without DRM makes the studios and music companies pee in their pants.
Fair enough online video is proprietary. But not ALL online distribution is proprietary. iTunes Plus AAC is as un-proprietary as you get for legal non-free online distribution.
As for "windows media and the garbled mess", even as you admit, without the Kool-Aid , this would be much more complicated and in this case very unnecessary -- think about getting everyone to a big concert. They're there and they're ready and they've listened to a few songs from various bands. Then suddenly, one popular band announces, uh, yeah for the rest of the 3-quarters of our gig, you got to get back in your cars and drive through the mud to like the smaller stadium like 55 miles South. Think about it.
As per your handcuff analogy, yes, Apple is a co-manufacturer of said handcuffs. But let's say you had to be 'cuffed for several days (in this case of DRM online media several years or decades[?]) wouldn't you prefer the most comfortable pair of handcuffs? In this case it ain't no reservoir dogs, Apple isn't putting a gun to your head and forcing these handcuffs on you. You can buy a DVD, rent a DVD, buy a CD, rent a CD, watch cable, watch free-to-air, buy a freakin' BluRay if that gets you off. Who am I to judge? And yes, YouTube and BitTorrent of course. A lot of people I know regularly watch whole episodes of TV (including the non-American kind) through YouTube. The point is that the alternative NBC/Universal are putting forward, or are likely to put forward, isn't going to be compelling, certainly not at this stage by any stretch of the imagination. If they have a better following and success, fair (pun intended) enough. But you don't have to be an Apple fanboy (like the 75% or whatever who use iTunes downloads etc etc) to know the good ice cream from the icky one. Who knows? NBC/Universal may start a whole new revolutionary online distribution system that gains massive market share. But this is again, very unlikely in the next year or so.
If there are those of us who are Apple fanboys, there are those out there who are anti-Apple fanboys. It's just a different flavour of Kool Aid... Consider this if you or anyone else on these forums want to continue beating the Kool Aid horse to death (and even into the afterlife) ...
By the way, hmm... let us know which online DRM video methodology you use to make your cell phone clip and burn to DVD... Not to ridicule you, but it is generally useful to know of these other approaches to enjoying media. And I am curious... There is honestly very few mobile phones out there that have compelling video-displaying abilities.
the problem is that with the exeption of the daily show and Top chef (whatever that is) everything you mentioned is on Over the air antenna channels, so just set up a Myth box, record it in HD for the big screen and compress it to postage stamp size for the ipod: I want HD and DD5.1 and the option to play it bak on a non-apple device, like WMC via xbox if I am going to pay $2/Ep
A couple of things. First, "the problem" you have with my point is wholly your own. I did not propose it as a solution for your situation. I could remake my point using completely non-OTA shows and my point would still be valid. Also, the original poster to whom I was replying clearly stated that, "My problem is that don't get any decent OTA where I live". I also do not get OTA reception, nor do I have an HD tuner. Then there is the bit about "just set up a Myth box". Now maybe its gotten a bit easier since I first set one up over 4 years ago, but even if it is as simple now as you are leading us to believe, I feel quite comfortable saying that the percent of the population, willing and able to "just set up a Myth box" is going to be significantly less than the percent willing and able to buy an Apple TV (not to mention the fact that it looks like the Myth option costs about $170 per HD tuner alone, and my show list would require a minimum of 2 tuners).
I don't know why the tone here on AI Forums has gone a bit sour. Even on big rants it used to be about the technology and the issues. Now everything is either "fanboy-ish" or the "lone voice of anti-Apple sanity". ...As I get back to a real job, it is no wonder that I spend less time posting on the forums.
I love technology, which is part of why I like Apple, yes, I do consider myself a fan, but not a blind lunitic who blindly takes whatever Mr Jobs sells!
People just seem to ignore the whole of the 800 LB gorilla in the room...Apple iTunes is a perfect example, what are you going to do with your gigs of useless content when the tech winds change? Apple has already proven that they legally can and have changed the terms of purchase AFTER THE DEAL WAS CLOSED...I don't know of any other vendor online that has changet TOU retroactively, and I believe that if anyone else had, there would have been an outcry the likes of which the tech community has never seen! OOOOH YEA! GOOGLE!!! Google has screwed their customers over by killing their content and giving them a gift certificate...WOOOOOPI...after a company screws you, you get the honor of doing more business with them...
Embracing DRM is soooo short sighted, in the long run, it will hurt.
I love technology, which is part of why I like Apple, yes, I do consider myself a fan, but not a blind lunitic who blindly takes whatever Mr Jobs sells!
People just seem to ignore the whole of the 800 LB gorilla in the room...Apple iTunes is a perfect example, what are you going to do with your gigs of useless content when the tech winds change? Apple has already proven that they legally can and have changed the terms of purchase AFTER THE DEAL WAS CLOSED...I don't know of any other vendor online that has changet TOU retroactively, and I believe that if anyone else had, there would have been an outcry the likes of which the tech community has never seen! OOOOH YEA! GOOGLE!!! Google has screwed their customers over by killing their content and giving them a gift certificate...WOOOOOPI...after a company screws you, you get the honor of doing more business with them...
Embracing DRM is soooo short sighted, in the long run, it will hurt.
I don't see a problem with DRM as applied to my example. I'm already getting more value for less cost. Even if I can only play my files once before DRM somehow breaks them, then I've still already gotten more than my moneys worth.
Also, it's worth pointing out that what you're suggesting as a solution instead of DRM my not be kosher. Time shifting as we all know is considered fair use, but is intended to be watched once at a later date. Storing show after show for repeated future viewing is called warehousing, and is of questionable legality. I'm not judging, nor do I think that morality and legality are one in the same, but personally I try to live within the confines of both.
I don't even watch TV anymore these days. Actually I don't even have a TV, that thing is so last century!
If I want a TV show, I just go to P2P and download the whole season!
I don't even know why someone would pay for something that's free! Especially if they can just buy a Tivo, or if they have a DVR or TV Turner in their computer, they can just record it. Waste of money!
Then again, only people who are rich and are spoiled with money would buy it.
I like Apple's decision.
Over time, power gets into fewer and fewer hands. It's great that Apple refuses their greedy decision.
One less avenue for the greedy bastard, one less income for the greedy pigs.
According to CrunchBase, "Hulu is NBC Universal and News Corporation?s online video joint venture." According to AdWeek, hulu will offer "full-length episodes of premium programming in a copyright-friendly environment." According to ValleyWag, hulu has "a $100 million investment, besides the backing of its parent companies, from Providence Equity Partners; a CEO, former Amazon.com executive Jason Kilar; and fancy offices in Los Angeles." According to TechCrunch, "Hulu translates to 'Cease' and 'Desist' in Swahili." According to me, "hulu," when used as a verb in Japanese, means "it falls."
You'll note that NBC's comments about iTunes included complaints about piracy controls, which would fit with their statement quoted in AdWeek about having their own "copyright-friendly environment"... whatever that means. And while many believe that hulu's objective is to compete with YouTube, it seems more likely to me that NBC is trying to eventually eliminate all middlemen and garner all the ad revenue for its premier shows. In short, hulu competes not only with YouTube, but with Apple's iTunes and NBC's own local broadcast affiliates.
Onward to complete vertical integration!
P.S. A personal rule of thumb: Most start-ups that spend lots of money on fancy offices at the front end fail miserably. Hmm... I thought GE knew that.
P.S. A personal rule of thumb: Most start-ups that spend lots of money on fancy offices at the front end fail miserably. Hmm... I thought GE knew that.
I forgot about that, but you may be right. I agree with the long term prognosis you gave in your post. A studio-centric service has yet to succeed.
Heaven forbid that you don't quite have the bandwidth to watch streamed video, though plenty enough to download a purchase. Heaven forbid that you want to watch it on a portable device.
I also don't get how it can be ad-supported, internet ad money is dirt. What they get from iTunes has to be a many times more money per video than what they can get with an ad-supported internet service.
In other news, I heard Sony pulled the plug on their Connect service. Didn't hear of it? You're not alone.
I don't even watch TV anymore these days. Actually I don't even have a TV, that thing is so last century!
If I want a TV show, I just go to P2P and download the whole season!
I don't even know why someone would pay for something that's free! Especially if they can just buy a Tivo, or if they have a DVR or TV Turner in their computer, they can just record it. Waste of money!
Then again, only people who are rich and are spoiled with money would buy it.
I like Apple's decision.
Over time, power gets into fewer and fewer hands. It's great that Apple refuses their greedy decision.
One less avenue for the greedy bastard, one less income for the greedy pigs.
Yeah, set em straight parasol.... Cause we all know apple isn't greedy at all, just wait 'til your paying extra $$ to have that song that you just bought be a ringtone on your iphone.
I'll do the math for you based on your propositions there.
if x + y = 1.99 and
2x + y = 4.99 then
y = 1.99 - x
2x + 1.99 - x = 4.99
x + 1.99 = 4.99
x = 4.99 - 1.99
x = 3
y = 1.99 - x
y = 1.99 - 3
y = -1.01
OMG my high skool math classes actually came in handy!! Or not...
Hmm.. can somebody check my algebra above?
Ok.. I haven't used algebra for years, but here goes...
I came up with :
1*NBC + 1*APPLE = 1.99
1x + 1y = 1.99
solve for y:
y = 1.99 - x
easy enough
2 < x < 3 *NBC + 1*APPLE = 4.99
Apple said "more than double" so I obviously above 2x but if it was real close
to 3x, wouldn't apple have said "close to 3 times wholesale".. so I'm assuming
it should be around 2 and a half times or 2.3x - 2.7x...
y = 4.99 - (between 2.4x and 2.7x)
I know this is totally breaking the rules of a real equation but Im trying
to show that we don't know the true increase in wholesale price
If you graph these equations (the second equation starting with 2.0x and increasing to 2.1x, 2.2x, 2.3x .....)
there is NO positive overlap (meaning Apple is getting less than $.01) until you get to about 2.7x or 2.7 times wholesale. And even here the split is:
$1.84 for NBC and $0.16 for APPLE.
if you bump it up to an increase of 2.8 times wholesale (which is what I believe would be the highest possible before Apple would describe the increase as "3x or nearly 3x")
you get:
$1.75 for NBC and $0.25 for APPLE
So either way, Apple is getting screwed as it is now.. and NBC is greedy as H3LL.
Can someone look at this mess of numbers and tell me if I am off-base?
I don't see a problem with DRM as applied to my example. I'm already getting more value for less cost. Even if I can only play my files once before DRM somehow breaks them, then I've still already gotten more than my moneys worth.
Also, it's worth pointing out that what you're suggesting as a solution instead of DRM my not be kosher. Time shifting as we all know is considered fair use, but is intended to be watched once at a later date. Storing show after show for repeated future viewing is called warehousing, and is of questionable legality. I'm not judging, nor do I think that morality and legality are one in the same, but personally I try to live within the confines of both.
Warehousing is absolutely legal, the 1984 vhs home recording case said that recording for personal use is legal, it never said that self-destructing or dubbing over the media after one view was a requirement, it also allowed place shifting, taking it to a buddy's house for example, it also never restricted media conversion: Lets say my Dad has a tape of a particularly special football game, I can copy it to DVD or iPod/MPEG4, hell, if I have the CPU and the time, I can even "clean it up".
Call me in 10 years when you want to show your kids, spouse or friends a particular show or event that you bought on iTunes, it is a black box that tinkerers cant "break, fix and learn"
I am reminded of propriatery greeting card maker formats, 10 years ago there were tons of home desktop publishing apps each saving in its own format, no one would open their format, and as a result family members of mine cant access family letters and cards that they made...hell, just try opening an Office Pre-95 document in 2007! IT DOESN'T WORK...and no one else has the recipe.
What about Divx in the early 2000s?
What I am worried about is the DRM, but more than that, I am worried about the fact that only one company holds the collective knoledge to operate it.
I am all for protecting artists' rights, but I am also for being able to watch season one of The Office 14 years from mow if I want to.
Now, I am fairly good at algebra, you all are thinking too much inside-the-box.
Apple+NBC=1.99
Apple gets x% of profit from selling this and NBC gets y%.
NBC wants to 'more than double' the price. AKA 199*2.5
Apple still gets x% of profit, NBC still gets y%. Neither are losing money... until one takes into account the decrease in the quantity of sales, which makes this a bad deal for apple. (Since it realizes, unlike NBC, that people won't pay $5 for a TV episode) And they will lose more than they make with the higher prices because of lowered sales.
...I am all for protecting artists' rights, but I am also for being able to watch season one of The Office 14 years from mow if I want to.
Yup, that's what DVDs are for. That's why I have Matrix 1,2,3 on DVD, Deep Impact, Three Kings, Aliens, Tokyo Drift... Not sure if I'd want to watch a whole season or more of a show a long time down the road, though I am interested in building a complete collection of DVDs of Deep Space Nine, the *only* Star Trek I ever really got into and still like.
But who knows what will happen to DVDs. I bet most people that have an extensive LaserDisc collection are kicking themselves in the b^lls right now...
Again, I do agree that DRM is just a waste of time. It is interesting to consider however that a computer 5 years from now can probably brute-force or whatever crack this year's FairPlay or whatever else DRM. 10 years, the computer would probably think for itself and generate a cracking program on the fly. Not to say that I do not like DRM at this stage. Just that Apple's approach currently makes the most sense to me, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobmarksdale
...Apple still gets x% of profit, NBC still gets y%...
Thanks for the input, this math stuff hurts me brain nowadays. However we are assuming season x and y % are the same for new season, when it would be more like x1,y1 and x2,y2. That is, maybe not only is NBC demanding more price per episode, but also more of a cut. Or maybe Apple was demanding more of a percentage [I am not an Apple lunatic, I admit this could very well have been the case ].
Comments
The big savings is in the fact that most shows are not on all year round, but you're paying for cable year round. Other benefits include, no commercials, and "owning" the media (ie. if its a show you would have bought on DVD that is no longer necessary, unless you want the bonus features)
So for example:
Lost Season Pass: $34.99
Ugly Betty Season Pass: $34.99
CSI Season Pass: $44.99
CSI: Miami Season Pass: $39.99
House Season Pass: $42.99
24 Season Pass: $44.99
Top Chef Season Pass: 28.99
Daily Show Multi-Pass(= 1 Month) $9.99 * 12 = $119.88
Total: $391.81/year
the problem is that with the exeption of the daily show and Top chef (whatever that is) everything you mentioned is on Over the air antenna channels, so just set up a Myth box, record it in HD for the big screen and compress it to postage stamp size for the ipod: I want HD and DD5.1 and the option to play it bak on a non-apple device, like WMC via xbox if I am going to pay $2/Ep
I can't wait to see the windows media/ proprietary/ garbled mess of DRM-ed videos these companies are going to churn out... and guess what, a great new source for pirated video once their DRM is cracked within a few weeks.
Yes, because I can play my iTunes videos everywhere, just yesterday, I loaded a small clip of one onto my cell phone, and I have also burned them to DVD to watch on my bigscreen...wait, Apple UNFAIR Play cant do this?
Newsflash fanboiz: ALL online distrobution right now is a "proprietary/ garbled mess of DRM-ed videos ", apple just happens to be the least restrictive, think of iTunes like a looser fitting pair of handcuffs
back to your regularly scheduled Kool-Aid overdosing
This right here is exactly why I don't have NBC HD on our Charter Cable. God dang NBC thinks they should charge the cable companies a premium for having their HD feed. Charter says never so no NBC HD for us in the near future.
So now I can't have The Office in HD or portable, excellent job NBC, way to screw your customers. Bittorrent's here I come. And I bought Season 1-3 off of Itunes.
Dont blame NBC fot that, that is a desicion that was made by the owner of the local affiliate, there are a few companies like LIN that own a ton of network affiliates and run them like total jerks, for example, LIN refuses to put WLFI on satalite because they want more money than anyone is willing to pay, so 5 counties in Indiana, where antenna reception from Indy isnt great, cant get ANY locals on satalite and teh only cable option is comcast...
blame the station owner for that mess, not NBC/GE
Let see $1.99 for each episode times 24 episodes is $47.76 and I sure like the music companies they got at least 75% of the gross for $35.82. That not bad considering people could record it free using a VCR or EyeTV. But $4.99 for each episode times 24 episodes is $119.76 are they insane!
I totally agree and I am sure their greed will be evident in a financial report. "Lost" season 3, including 6 hours bonus material, on DVD at Best Buy is only 49.99 and we would be able to rip it to a bit rate of our choosing with no DRM. Even though Apple lost 30% of its TV Show downloads I applaud them for not buckling to Universal's demands, as well as, not selling any more shows when the new season starts. Doesn't Universal know true video iPods are just around the corner?
Yeah, but Ugly Betty?
Yeah, Ugly Betty. I have watched a few episodes and it is a good show.
Looking at Amazon Heroes season one on DVD has a retail price of $59.98 (discounted to $36.99) while the HD DVD has a retail price of $99 (discounted to $69.95). iTMS sells the season pass for $42.99, but you get it a lot sooner than you can get the DVD, thus NBC and their advertisers could be trying to account for lost ad revenue for the purchased downloads as people buy the ad free version rather than watching the network version with the ads. Sure NBC still makes money off the sales, but if the advertisers see shrinking ratings due to purchases then the network makes less money from ad sales which so they can cut the cost of production or increase the price of the retail ad free video to cover the loss in ad revenue which pays for the production. Also if they have high video sales then they could expect that the price the show gets for syndication would drop since the pool of likely viewers would be smaller.
The point is that the reason that a high quality show can be sold for $1.99 and still be profitable is that it is subsidized by ad revenue at some point. As long as the retail sale of these shows does not cut into revenue then it is another way to extend the profitability of the production. In the old days that was done with syndication, now they have added DVD's and have started out with downloads. But traditional TV ad revenue is going down throughout the industry as more people move to DVR's, DVD's, and downloads.
NBC and others are looking for a model that they can thrive with in the new u-Tube world, just as Apple is. It's going to take some trial and error to get it right, that is why Steve described the AppleTV as a Hobby, it is an experiment. I think that NBC has some problems with the streaming model that they seems to be moving to, because as Apple is working to get the video off of the computer and onto the big screen it looks like the broadcaster is doing just the opposite. I think that a better move for both would be to link Apple TV to NBC's streaming service for an ad based distribution, and hold off of the commercial sale of DVD and downloads until after the season is over so that it is not competing with the ad supported broadcast/streaming of the show.
Yes, because I can play my iTunes videos everywhere, just yesterday, I loaded a small clip of one onto my cell phone, and I have also burned them to DVD to watch on my bigscreen...wait, Apple UNFAIR Play cant do this?
Newsflash fanboiz: ALL online distrobution right now is a "proprietary/ garbled mess of DRM-ed videos ", apple just happens to be the least restrictive, think of iTunes like a looser fitting pair of handcuffs
back to your regularly scheduled Kool-Aid overdosing
I don't know why the tone here on AI Forums has gone a bit sour. Even on big rants it used to be about the technology and the issues. Now everything is either "fanboy-ish" or the "lone voice of anti-Apple sanity".
Anyways, yes, everything has DRM, oh, except stuff that DOESN'T, like iTunes Plus. It is very clear that if there was non-DRM videos Apple would be happy with it and it might actually *reduce* piracy but anything without DRM makes the studios and music companies pee in their pants.
Fair enough online video is proprietary. But not ALL online distribution is proprietary. iTunes Plus AAC is as un-proprietary as you get for legal non-free online distribution.
As for "windows media and the garbled mess", even as you admit, without the Kool-Aid
As per your handcuff analogy, yes, Apple is a co-manufacturer of said handcuffs. But let's say you had to be 'cuffed for several days (in this case of DRM online media several years or decades[?]) wouldn't you prefer the most comfortable pair of handcuffs? In this case it ain't no reservoir dogs, Apple isn't putting a gun to your head and forcing these handcuffs on you. You can buy a DVD, rent a DVD, buy a CD, rent a CD, watch cable, watch free-to-air, buy a freakin' BluRay if that gets you off. Who am I to judge? And yes, YouTube and BitTorrent of course. A lot of people I know regularly watch whole episodes of TV (including the non-American kind) through YouTube. The point is that the alternative NBC/Universal are putting forward, or are likely to put forward, isn't going to be compelling, certainly not at this stage by any stretch of the imagination. If they have a better following and success, fair (pun intended) enough. But you don't have to be an Apple fanboy (like the 75% or whatever who use iTunes downloads etc etc) to know the good ice cream from the icky one. Who knows? NBC/Universal may start a whole new revolutionary online distribution system that gains massive market share. But this is again, very unlikely in the next year or so.
If there are those of us who are Apple fanboys, there are those out there who are anti-Apple fanboys. It's just a different flavour of Kool Aid... Consider this if you or anyone else on these forums want to continue beating the Kool Aid horse to death (and even into the afterlife)
By the way, hmm... let us know which online DRM video methodology you use to make your cell phone clip and burn to DVD... Not to ridicule you, but it is generally useful to know of these other approaches to enjoying media. And I am curious... There is honestly very few mobile phones out there that have compelling video-displaying abilities.
the problem is that with the exeption of the daily show and Top chef (whatever that is) everything you mentioned is on Over the air antenna channels, so just set up a Myth box, record it in HD for the big screen and compress it to postage stamp size for the ipod: I want HD and DD5.1 and the option to play it bak on a non-apple device, like WMC via xbox if I am going to pay $2/Ep
A couple of things. First, "the problem" you have with my point is wholly your own. I did not propose it as a solution for your situation. I could remake my point using completely non-OTA shows and my point would still be valid. Also, the original poster to whom I was replying clearly stated that, "My problem is that don't get any decent OTA where I live". I also do not get OTA reception, nor do I have an HD tuner. Then there is the bit about "just set up a Myth box". Now maybe its gotten a bit easier since I first set one up over 4 years ago, but even if it is as simple now as you are leading us to believe, I feel quite comfortable saying that the percent of the population, willing and able to "just set up a Myth box" is going to be significantly less than the percent willing and able to buy an Apple TV (not to mention the fact that it looks like the Myth option costs about $170 per HD tuner alone, and my show list would require a minimum of 2 tuners).
I don't know why the tone here on AI Forums has gone a bit sour. Even on big rants it used to be about the technology and the issues. Now everything is either "fanboy-ish" or the "lone voice of anti-Apple sanity".
I love technology, which is part of why I like Apple, yes, I do consider myself a fan, but not a blind lunitic who blindly takes whatever Mr Jobs sells!
People just seem to ignore the whole of the 800 LB gorilla in the room...Apple iTunes is a perfect example, what are you going to do with your gigs of useless content when the tech winds change? Apple has already proven that they legally can and have changed the terms of purchase AFTER THE DEAL WAS CLOSED...I don't know of any other vendor online that has changet TOU retroactively, and I believe that if anyone else had, there would have been an outcry the likes of which the tech community has never seen! OOOOH YEA! GOOGLE!!! Google has screwed their customers over by killing their content and giving them a gift certificate...WOOOOOPI...after a company screws you, you get the honor of doing more business with them...
Embracing DRM is soooo short sighted, in the long run, it will hurt.
I love technology, which is part of why I like Apple, yes, I do consider myself a fan, but not a blind lunitic who blindly takes whatever Mr Jobs sells!
People just seem to ignore the whole of the 800 LB gorilla in the room...Apple iTunes is a perfect example, what are you going to do with your gigs of useless content when the tech winds change? Apple has already proven that they legally can and have changed the terms of purchase AFTER THE DEAL WAS CLOSED...I don't know of any other vendor online that has changet TOU retroactively, and I believe that if anyone else had, there would have been an outcry the likes of which the tech community has never seen! OOOOH YEA! GOOGLE!!! Google has screwed their customers over by killing their content and giving them a gift certificate...WOOOOOPI...after a company screws you, you get the honor of doing more business with them...
Embracing DRM is soooo short sighted, in the long run, it will hurt.
I don't see a problem with DRM as applied to my example. I'm already getting more value for less cost. Even if I can only play my files once before DRM somehow breaks them, then I've still already gotten more than my moneys worth.
Also, it's worth pointing out that what you're suggesting as a solution instead of DRM my not be kosher. Time shifting as we all know is considered fair use, but is intended to be watched once at a later date. Storing show after show for repeated future viewing is called warehousing, and is of questionable legality. I'm not judging, nor do I think that morality and legality are one in the same, but personally I try to live within the confines of both.
If I want a TV show, I just go to P2P and download the whole season!
I don't even know why someone would pay for something that's free! Especially if they can just buy a Tivo, or if they have a DVR or TV Turner in their computer, they can just record it. Waste of money!
Then again, only people who are rich and are spoiled with money would buy it.
I like Apple's decision.
Over time, power gets into fewer and fewer hands. It's great that Apple refuses their greedy decision.
One less avenue for the greedy bastard, one less income for the greedy pigs.
If I want a TV show, I just go to P2P and download the whole season! I don't even know why someone would pay for something that's free!
Interesting definition of "free".
According to CrunchBase, "Hulu is NBC Universal and News Corporation?s online video joint venture." According to AdWeek, hulu will offer "full-length episodes of premium programming in a copyright-friendly environment."
You'll note that NBC's comments about iTunes included complaints about piracy controls, which would fit with their statement quoted in AdWeek about having their own "copyright-friendly environment"... whatever that means.
Onward to complete vertical integration!
P.S. A personal rule of thumb: Most start-ups that spend lots of money on fancy offices at the front end fail miserably. Hmm... I thought GE knew that.
I bet Hulu has something to do with this.
...
Onward to complete vertical integration!
P.S. A personal rule of thumb: Most start-ups that spend lots of money on fancy offices at the front end fail miserably. Hmm... I thought GE knew that.
I forgot about that, but you may be right. I agree with the long term prognosis you gave in your post. A studio-centric service has yet to succeed.
Heaven forbid that you don't quite have the bandwidth to watch streamed video, though plenty enough to download a purchase. Heaven forbid that you want to watch it on a portable device.
I also don't get how it can be ad-supported, internet ad money is dirt. What they get from iTunes has to be a many times more money per video than what they can get with an ad-supported internet service.
In other news, I heard Sony pulled the plug on their Connect service. Didn't hear of it? You're not alone.
I don't even watch TV anymore these days. Actually I don't even have a TV, that thing is so last century!
If I want a TV show, I just go to P2P and download the whole season!
I don't even know why someone would pay for something that's free! Especially if they can just buy a Tivo, or if they have a DVR or TV Turner in their computer, they can just record it. Waste of money!
Then again, only people who are rich and are spoiled with money would buy it.
I like Apple's decision.
Over time, power gets into fewer and fewer hands. It's great that Apple refuses their greedy decision.
One less avenue for the greedy bastard, one less income for the greedy pigs.
Yeah, set em straight parasol.... Cause we all know apple isn't greedy at all, just wait 'til your paying extra $$ to have that song that you just bought be a ringtone on your iphone.
I'll do the math for you based on your propositions there.
if x + y = 1.99 and
2x + y = 4.99 then
y = 1.99 - x
2x + 1.99 - x = 4.99
x + 1.99 = 4.99
x = 4.99 - 1.99
x = 3
y = 1.99 - x
y = 1.99 - 3
y = -1.01
OMG my high skool math classes actually came in handy!! Or not...
Hmm.. can somebody check my algebra above?
Ok.. I haven't used algebra for years, but here goes...
I came up with :
1*NBC + 1*APPLE = 1.99
1x + 1y = 1.99
solve for y:
y = 1.99 - x
easy enough
2 < x < 3 *NBC + 1*APPLE = 4.99
Apple said "more than double" so I obviously above 2x but if it was real close
to 3x, wouldn't apple have said "close to 3 times wholesale".. so I'm assuming
it should be around 2 and a half times or 2.3x - 2.7x...
y = 4.99 - (between 2.4x and 2.7x)
I know this is totally breaking the rules of a real equation but Im trying
to show that we don't know the true increase in wholesale price
If you graph these equations (the second equation starting with 2.0x and increasing to 2.1x, 2.2x, 2.3x .....)
there is NO positive overlap (meaning Apple is getting less than $.01) until you get to about 2.7x or 2.7 times wholesale. And even here the split is:
$1.84 for NBC and $0.16 for APPLE.
if you bump it up to an increase of 2.8 times wholesale (which is what I believe would be the highest possible before Apple would describe the increase as "3x or nearly 3x")
you get:
$1.75 for NBC and $0.25 for APPLE
So either way, Apple is getting screwed as it is now.. and NBC is greedy as H3LL.
Can someone look at this mess of numbers and tell me if I am off-base?
I don't see a problem with DRM as applied to my example. I'm already getting more value for less cost. Even if I can only play my files once before DRM somehow breaks them, then I've still already gotten more than my moneys worth.
Also, it's worth pointing out that what you're suggesting as a solution instead of DRM my not be kosher. Time shifting as we all know is considered fair use, but is intended to be watched once at a later date. Storing show after show for repeated future viewing is called warehousing, and is of questionable legality. I'm not judging, nor do I think that morality and legality are one in the same, but personally I try to live within the confines of both.
Warehousing is absolutely legal, the 1984 vhs home recording case said that recording for personal use is legal, it never said that self-destructing or dubbing over the media after one view was a requirement, it also allowed place shifting, taking it to a buddy's house for example, it also never restricted media conversion: Lets say my Dad has a tape of a particularly special football game, I can copy it to DVD or iPod/MPEG4, hell, if I have the CPU and the time, I can even "clean it up".
Call me in 10 years when you want to show your kids, spouse or friends a particular show or event that you bought on iTunes, it is a black box that tinkerers cant "break, fix and learn"
I am reminded of propriatery greeting card maker formats, 10 years ago there were tons of home desktop publishing apps each saving in its own format, no one would open their format, and as a result family members of mine cant access family letters and cards that they made...hell, just try opening an Office Pre-95 document in 2007! IT DOESN'T WORK...and no one else has the recipe.
What about Divx in the early 2000s?
What I am worried about is the DRM, but more than that, I am worried about the fact that only one company holds the collective knoledge to operate it.
I am all for protecting artists' rights, but I am also for being able to watch season one of The Office 14 years from mow if I want to.
Apple+NBC=1.99
Apple gets x% of profit from selling this and NBC gets y%.
NBC wants to 'more than double' the price. AKA 199*2.5
Apple still gets x% of profit, NBC still gets y%. Neither are losing money... until one takes into account the decrease in the quantity of sales, which makes this a bad deal for apple. (Since it realizes, unlike NBC, that people won't pay $5 for a TV episode) And they will lose more than they make with the higher prices because of lowered sales.
...I am all for protecting artists' rights, but I am also for being able to watch season one of The Office 14 years from mow if I want to.
Yup, that's what DVDs are for.
But who knows what will happen to DVDs. I bet most people that have an extensive LaserDisc collection are kicking themselves in the b^lls right now...
Again, I do agree that DRM is just a waste of time. It is interesting to consider however that a computer 5 years from now can probably brute-force or whatever crack this year's FairPlay or whatever else DRM. 10 years, the computer would probably think for itself and generate a cracking program on the fly. Not to say that I do not like DRM at this stage. Just that Apple's approach currently makes the most sense to me, IMO.
...Apple still gets x% of profit, NBC still gets y%...
Thanks for the input, this math stuff hurts me brain nowadays. However we are assuming season x and y % are the same for new season, when it would be more like x1,y1 and x2,y2. That is, maybe not only is NBC demanding more price per episode, but also more of a cut. Or maybe Apple was demanding more of a percentage [I am not an Apple lunatic, I admit this could very well have been the case