Networks skeptical of Apple's push for $1 iTunes TV episodes

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 44
    The TV industry and Apple would both benefit from $.99/episode sales. More people would buy for that price. It's just good business. We'll probably see most shows go for a buck.



    http://iPadLot.com
  • Reply 22 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jeffharris View Post


    How much does each network get from our cable TV bills?

    I bet it's a LOT less than a buck-a-show.



    Even a $30 per-month plan I bet would work out better for the networks.



    It is more than a buck a show, a majority of the money comes from the networks selling advertisements. The cable company also has detailed subscriber info, which allows for further marketing leverage.



    Apple doesn't want to give them buyer information, and they don't get any advertising revenues from digital downloads.



    An episode of Lost apparently costs about $3.5-4 million to produce, plus marketing and distribution expenses. According to Nielsen, about 5.5 million people watched Lost last week, and if the price was a buck per episode and every single person bought it, with Apple taking $0.30, they'd gross $3.85 million, which probably means losing money. At the peak of Friends' popularity, the cast was making $1 million EACH per episode, so that $3.85 million would've meant huge losses for that series.



    Besides that, every single person who watches episodes online instead of on TV erodes the network's viewer base, and hurts audience numbers of programs which immediately precede and follow the show in question. And, chances are if someone pays for downloading the season, they're not going to buy the DVD later on.



    Anyways, I figure they might as well try starting at $3 or $3.50 per new episode of original programming, and then charge $2 for month-old episodes, $1.50 for year-old episodes, kind of like how DVD sets charge about $1.50 per episode and come out after the season is finished.



    If people don't bite, they can always lower the price, but they'll find it very difficult to raise the prices in the future if the start at $1...



    I think the recording industry dropped the ball with 99 cent downloads. Should have been $2 per song or $10-12 per album... Then there wouldn't have been so much hurt from people only buying 2 or 3 tracks instead of the full album...
  • Reply 23 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nkhm View Post


    Apple really can't win - they give into the distributors and are criticised by the public, they try and please the public and are criticised by the distributors.



    People are very quick to criticise apple re. music prices, movie and tv prices and soon eBook prices - when are people going to realise that apple operate in a free market economy and don't really have the strength to dictate prices (or anything else) if they are to succeed.



    I think a lot of people forget how things were before the itunes store - yes - there are lots of alternatives out there now, but at the time jobs was negotiating with the music labels he had a massive uphill struggle.



    It's very disappointing that content providers still haven't grasped the fact that they either need to step up to the table and modernise, or their content will simply be stolen and everyone will miss out.



    Particularly annoying is the situation with US shows being shown several months later over here in the UK, by which time we've downloaded and watched them, resulting in lower recorded viewing figures for the UK TV channels and shows potentially being cancelled in the UK because of perceived lack of interest. It's a stupid situation and needs fixing - but apple can't fix it - fox, cbs, sony etc. etc. are the ones who need to modernise.



    Excellent points buddy. Just stick in a couple of ads and give them for free you morons, everyone is going to download them illegally anyway. At least get your money by a couple of well placed adds, at the beginning, middle and end, and get on with it. Everyone's got 20 channels freeview anyway, let alone the tons of channels they might have on paid cable, all of which they can freely record...it's not like they are burning to download your mostly derivative and second rate content...



    Get on with the times...because as soon as it's de facto standard as it's turning out to be that digital tv content will be mostly free, no one is even going to think twice about it...
  • Reply 24 of 44
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    I think the networks are misguided.



    There's no way I'm going to watch something on my iPad if it's also available on TV. I'll be using my iPad when I'm traveling - so it won't cut into my TV viewing.



    I guess there's a remote possibility that there might be nothing really worth watching on TV and I"d watch something older on the iPad rather than something marginal on TV, but if there's nothing good on, I'm more likely to just turn the TV off. The solution to that, of course, is to make better content for broadcast/cable TV.
  • Reply 25 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jacob1varghese View Post


    Many shows don't get picked up or renewed by TV networks, but still have large bases of viewers.



    iTunes would be the perfect platform for content producers to sell directly to consumers.



    Instead of getting the run-around from the networks and dealing with censors,

    market and sell your show on iTunes.



    The content producers ARE the networks...



    Who else is going to front $15-100 million to produce a 26-episode season of a show?
  • Reply 26 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Superbass View Post


    I think the recording industry dropped the ball with 99 cent downloads. Should have been $2 per song or $10-12 per album... Then there wouldn't have been so much hurt from people only buying 2 or 3 tracks instead of the full album...



    What was the hurt in that? That a few singers didn't get to be multimillionaires but merely millionaires?



    Any performer that's worth their salt should just get off their butt and perform to make a living as everyone of us does, not expect to spend a month in the studio and then have a big fat cash cow for them. Also if their records are only good for 3 songs, too bad, they should work harder. In this day an age 99.99% of the music being made isn't worth $1 an album, let alone a song.



    We are not living in the 60s, or 70s or even the 80s and 90s, when the market was flooded with great music, now no one is making any decent records by and large, partly of course due to the fact that the genre has been exhausted.



    The small fish in the pond, some of them the real artists never made any money to begin with, and they had to rely on performing. Bob Dylan is nearing 70 and he plays live half the calendar year, why do any of the other spoilt brats should expect to put out a couple of hyped up crap albums to steal teenagers pocket money and be well off for their rest of their lives with royalties whilst they are strolling around doing coke in parties and yachts? They should get off their lazy buts and perform.
  • Reply 27 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    I think the networks are misguided.



    There's no way I'm going to watch something on my iPad if it's also available on TV. I'll be using my iPad when I'm traveling - so it won't cut into my TV viewing.



    I guess there's a remote possibility that there might be nothing really worth watching on TV and I"d watch something older on the iPad rather than something marginal on TV, but if there's nothing good on, I'm more likely to just turn the TV off. The solution to that, of course, is to make better content for broadcast/cable TV.



    And to add to that, one word: slingbox app for the ipad...see how many they'll be able to sell then.
  • Reply 28 of 44
    There are a lot of functions for which I can imagine the iPad being well-suited but as a replacement for a TV receiving programming via a delivery method like cable, I don't think so.



    As much as a I hate paying so much every month to my cable provider, there really is no practical alternative considering in my household there are some of us that are into foreign-language programming, others following a particular sports team, etc.



    Would I welcome a service that provided what I want for a lot less money? Clearly we all would. But whatever is offered has to provide the complete package for me to go that route because if I get some of what I need via Apple's subscription model yet need to take steps, and spend more money, to round out the package, it's just not going to happen. Life is complicated enough. I just want to turn on my TV and have programming available as I'm accustomed to.



    I'm sure that for some consumers, a stripped-down service that offers a cheaper alternative to satisfy one's Lost fix, works out fine. But then there's the rest of us. We have come to expect the complete package, pay one bill, and not give it all another thought.
  • Reply 29 of 44
    I pay about $45 a month for 120 channels of nothing to watch, why would I pay $30 a month for... the same content?



    0.99 / episode = ~$18 for a season. I just went to Amazon and searched for Lost, season 1, which sells for $16.99.



    This is not a competitor, per say, to Cable/Local, this is a competitor to DVD sales.



    So, $1 / episode is well within reason.



    $2.99 is not.
  • Reply 30 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post


    What was the hurt in that? That a few singers didn't get to be multimillionaires but merely millionaires?



    the only ones becoming millionaires from CD sales are the record companies. Not the song writers, session musicians or 'average' hit band.
  • Reply 31 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by reliason View Post


    the only ones becoming millionaires from CD sales are the record companies. Not the song writers, session musicians or 'average' hit band.



    define "average", and then we 'll talk.
  • Reply 32 of 44
    cmf2cmf2 Posts: 1,427member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    I think the networks are misguided.



    There's no way I'm going to watch something on my iPad if it's also available on TV. I'll be using my iPad when I'm traveling - so it won't cut into my TV viewing.



    I guess there's a remote possibility that there might be nothing really worth watching on TV and I"d watch something older on the iPad rather than something marginal on TV, but if there's nothing good on, I'm more likely to just turn the TV off. The solution to that, of course, is to make better content for broadcast/cable TV.



    This pricing affects iTunes, which includes computers and Apple TV in addition to the iPad. Computers are easily hooked up to a TV, and Apple TV is designed to be hooked up to a TV, so the networks are not misguided in that regard. However, what they are doing is clinging to their old bread bringers. Cable TV in an internet age doesn't make a lot of sense at all. They can try to slow the conversion from cable to internet based distribution of video content, but the switch is inevitable and they would be a lot better off if they had fully developed revenue streams in place for when people start dropping cable in large numbers, but that is not what they are doing. Like so many others, they are scared of the internet and shun it instead. They will soon learn that you can't shun the internet. If they refuse to offer competitive online pricing and online services on par with cable, people will simply resort to other means of getting their content online, while still dropping cable, but the networks wont be generating revenue from those means. Cable TV as we know it today will die (eventually) and the networks will not be prepared because they fought against the conversion instead of accepting its inevitability and developing a business model.



    If you are a wagon manufacturer and the car is invented, you better start making cars if you want to have a future, not ban cars on any roads you own and petition others to do the same. People won't stop buying cars, they will simply find/build other roads.
  • Reply 33 of 44
    I pay pennies a show and don't use the torrents to do so.



    Netflix and my PS3.
  • Reply 34 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jeffharris View Post


    How much does each network get from our cable TV bills?

    I bet it's a LOT less than a buck-a-show.



    Even a $30 per-month plan I bet would work out better for the networks.



    but the math is tricky. See the networks are worried about how this per month thing might eat into the holy Nielsen ratings, costing them money. Now you could say they should just put the per month money into the coffers with the ratings money but how will they. they'd have to get some kind of a report of subscriptions of each show. like the only option would have to be by season, not by ep. because episode only downloads mucks up the math even more.



    I think that they should start with older shows. the stuff that's not on the air anymore. Drop those to a dollar/two dollars or put them in this per month plan. You could even perhaps do the very first season or two of still airing shows, which might actually encourage new viewers. let the current stuff stay at the higher price for now. maybe do some limited specials like CBS has where they drop the price for a well advertised week and compare download numbers.



    And set it up so those that bought the SD before can add the HD for the price difference. for our ipads. that could bump a few sales.
  • Reply 35 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by UnexpectedBill View Post


    Over the air digital television is compressed and delivered as an MPEG2 transport stream. The quality you get depends upon the level of compression used at the TV station. It could very well be better than digital cable TV, but it's still compressed.



    True, it's compressed, but the comparisons I've seen indicate that the cable companies are compressing it a lot more than over the air.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by UnexpectedBill View Post


    It's a nice theory, but I have yet to find anything that does a particularly good job of this for PCs. (I've tried WinTV, BeyondTV, and Mythbuntu. Of those, WinTV worked the best but none were particularly impressive.) Maybe the elgato products are better?



    You also need a fairly powerful system to watch over the air ATSC, as all decoding is done by your system CPU (with possible help from your graphics processor).



    I'm using an El Gato EyeTV 3 hooked up to a 2.0GHz Mac mini and it works great for 1080i and 720p shows outputting to a 1080p TV via DVI/HDMI. I get about one or two missed frames per show, but I'm not sure if that is my antenna position or a fragmented drive. In either case, it's barely noticeable. The recurring recordings on El Gato work great. It's not quite as nice as the TiVo it replaced, but it's very close and substantially cheaper. Plus, it works great for watching Hulu and iTunes in my living room. It actually turns out to be nice to be able to browse the web with my wife without hunching over a laptop. I would highly recommend a similar setup.
  • Reply 36 of 44
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quevar View Post


    ...I'm using an El Gato EyeTV 3 hooked up to a 2.0GHz Mac mini and it works great for 1080i and 720p shows outputting to a 1080p TV via DVI/HDMI. I get about one or two missed frames per show, but I'm not sure if that is my antenna position or a fragmented drive. In either case, it's barely noticeable. The recurring recordings on El Gato work great. It's not quite as nice as the TiVo it replaced, but it's very close and substantially cheaper. Plus, it works great for watching Hulu and iTunes in my living room. It actually turns out to be nice to be able to browse the web with my wife without hunching over a laptop. I would highly recommend a similar setup.



    I have the exact same setup as you do. I use Snatch iPhone remote to control the Mac Mini.



    The set up is high on functionality but definitely requires some tinkering and a little training for the Mrs.
  • Reply 37 of 44
    kotatsukotatsu Posts: 1,010member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kiwee View Post


    What they should do if they really want to make it big is to go International. In Europe some of the shows are 1 year behind. Everyone downloads the latest episodes from pirate bay because there is no other way of watching them. Lost/Heroes etc.



    There are no good legal alternatives right now.. Unless you don't want to be a season behind everyone else.



    And don't say HULU.. Not accessible from Europe.



    I agree, and although things are a little better in the UK now than they once were, the UK iTunes store is still a total joke compared to it's US counterpart. Most things are in SD only, with prices 2x higher than the US and of course, weeks, months, or even years out of date.



    It's a farce but for whatever reason media companies in the UK seem uninterested in countering piracy with anything other than scare tactics. I'm sure one day they'll wake up to the reality of the world as the music guys finally did, but I sense it's going to be many years before they do.
  • Reply 38 of 44
    kotatsukotatsu Posts: 1,010member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post


    I pay pennies a show and don't use the torrents to do so.



    Netflix and my PS3.



    Oh how I wish we had Netflix here in the UK!



    All we have is iTunes, which is super expensive, mostly in SD, and often years out of date. Then we have Xbox Live's Zune marketplace, which has virtually no content at all (although at least what few movies they have are usually in 1080p). Finally we have the PSN Video Store, which lies somewhere between iTunes and Microsoft in terms of content, but most is in SD and almost all has only 2 channel stereo audio. Oh, and of course it's months/years out of date too.



    So it's a big joke here in Europe. No wonder torrents are so popular.
  • Reply 39 of 44
    Why listen to Apple? They want content for the iPad, and that's all they want out of this deal. Here's a piece of advice for content providers dealing with Apple: If you look around the deal room and can't figure out who the sucker is, it's you.



    Pricing a TV show below the cost of 90% of the songs on Apple's Top 10 charts ($1.29) seems absolutely ridiculous. Apple charges $79 for iLife, which would also buy you 80 TV shows under Apple's 99 cent plan (since both have sales tax we'll ignore that). A popular TV hourlong (one worth downloading and owning) probably runs in the $4 million per episode range once it becomes successful. So Apple is equating the cost of developing an iLife upgrade (they've long since paid off the initial development costs) with around $320 million in TV production. No way Apple spends $320 million on iLife development per upgrade cycle.



    Music industry got smart, lotsa songs at $1.29 now. Publishing industry got smart, e-book prices have gone up since Apple announced they were entering the market. A company that spends 6 figures developing a polished iPhone app seems perfectly justified charging $4.99 for it. And here's where they all figured out how to make it work: they use flexible pricing. the ability to price high when a product is hot, low when its not, and offer brief sales and freebies to generate interest. Apple should just let it be an open market, demand will determine what people will pay. If people won't pay what makes this profitable for the content providers, then the business model doesn't support putting TV shows on iTunes. Simple.
  • Reply 40 of 44
    The problem I have with the networks is the same problem I have with the music companies, publishers and movie studios:



    There are virtually no production costs!!!



    The programming is already done, they produced it for broadcast airing. These companies only have to produce 1 subsequent digital copy of a product and deliver it to Apple for distribution. That's it. No production, no graphic designing of artwork, no packaging, no labor costs, no distribution channels, no dealing with retailers, no spoilage, no reselling of products, etc. Nothing. There is no way possible that a company can tell me that the cut they get from Apple is less than what they make on a physical product, impossible.
Sign In or Register to comment.