Completely agree. I'm paying $1 a day for DISH, and this idiot wants me to pay $3 for one episode of one show?!?!?!?! By far one of the more absurd things I have ever heard.
Well, the WB has been in and out of bankruptcy, so what do you expect? Business judgment?
Although I totally agree with this, I have to think that Apple itself plays this game. I'd like a Macbook Pro, but it's too expensive for me. If you have the only game in town, people who really want to play will pay it. You may lose volume profit but, like Apple, gain high revenue. Granted $0.99 is way to high for a episode that may be good or junk, but it's their product and they have the right to price it. I personally think the studios are stupid and will regret their choice in the long term, but have you paid $5.00 for a medium bag of popcorn or $3.00 for half filled small box of candy in the theater lately? That on top of almost 10 bucks for the ticket. Yet people keep paying it!
Know the way to make a cheap Mac? Give up the rights to anything but the OS. Stop making hardware that ties to it. Let every fab in the world make hardware that runs the Mac OS. Charge a license from the manufacturers only. Then we'd have Macs that are identical to the competition. And a larger slice of the market.
I won't be dropping cable any time soon. Sure I have to endure commercials, but I find them a very useful break to deal with dinner and family. When I watch PBS I inevitably miss important action while I stir something on the stove, get a kid into pajamas, use the bathroom, etc. I know digital downloads would solve the pausing the show problem, but PBS shows aren't available on iTunes.
Cable gives me:
1. a choice of 24 hour cartoon channels for the kids
2. live sports
3. local news
4. game shows I would never pay for
5. $15/month off the cost of my internet and phone
If I miss an episode of a favourite drama I must have been doing something important. I can't imagine paying extra and trying to find time outside my normal TV watching hours to see it. I have far better things to do with my time and money.
Why isn't PBS TV on iTunes, I wonder? PBS needs the money.
Sure, for live sports, fine. Cartoon channels, fine.
I think cable subscribers need freedom of choice. A la carte is the way. So you'd take ESPN, live sports, you'd want the local channels -- you can get those on antennas, you know, great picture, uncompressed 1080i -- but do you want the whole Comedy channel, or just "The Daily Show"? Everything else is like the app store. Otherwise, you pay just for whatever speed of cable you want. And that price should stay the same whether you want cable or not.
It's the coercion I don't like. I want the basic channels. I'd buy a few, like the news channels and Comedy Central, and maybe HBO. Why am I paying for the disgusting, stupid channels? Why should I be subjected to Kim Kardashian and her mentally challenged family?
When digital overtakes the crappy old cable world, turning on the TV will be a menu of choices. Your free podcasts and TV shows paid for with ads, the ones you buy, the "group orders," like the whole ongoing season of Mad Men or whatever, and some free samples in the program store.
What do you need the top-down broadcast model for? Live events. Actual news as it breaks. Making a Skype call to your girlfriend. Get it?
1) The networks currently make money from cable TV companies, who force consumers to pay high monthly fees for a package of hundreds of channels, most of which the consumers don't want.. The networks make additional money from selling ads on all those channels, including the unwanted ones. If they were to facilitate Apple's a la carte business model, this would reduce the number of people willing to pay for cable, thereby threatening their two main revenue streams. Of course, this ignores the fact that cable TV's days are numbered, but then corporate executives (especially those in the entertainment industry) are rarely known for their strategic, visionary thinking. Their compensation packages are based on maintaining their stock price and showing profits from one quarter to the next - not planning for their companies' long term survival and profitability.
2) As a side note to #1, advertising rates are based on bullshit ratings services like Nielsen. A shift in viewership to digital devices would come with highly detailed and accurate analytics that would reveal just how little people care about most of their programming, destroying advertising rates for said programs.
I hear you but we already get those 7 shows now...for $70 via Dish. What we're want/hope is to get those shows and only those shows for say....$30-$40. If Apple TV can get that to us, that'll just be one more Apple product in a long list of Apple products in our house.
7 shows x 4 weeks = 28$ per month on apple tv 99c rentals. So you get those shows for say 28 per month maybe...
There is no show on any channel, at any price, that is worth paying for. Movies (and series) are another thing however, which is why Netflix is the deal of the century, as long as you don't mind not watching the most recent episode.
WTF is wrong with some of you? You?re comparing TV shows that have been off the air for years to the ability to rent or buys shows the day after they air.
OK, first off that's a nice and rude comment, but here's the deal:
1st off, iTunes is _selling_ those same older shows for WAY more than you can buy them on DVD - oh wait, the episodes cost the same amount as NEW shows! - which indicates to me that the studios are totally jacking the prices on iTunes.
Secondly, the fact that there is NO pricing allowance for 1 hour vs. 1/2 hour shows indicating there's a certain level of price fixing - or are you under the impression that networks run the same number of ads normally in 1 hour as in 1/2 hour? I'd get pricing by popularity as judged by Nielsen ratings since they get higher rates for ads, but that's not what's going on, is it?
Finally, based on your comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I usually get my TV shows for torrents and never watch actual TV, but that doesn?t mean that this option is overpriced or stupid because it doesn?t fit my needs.
Now I'd say back to you: WTF is wrong with you? In one answer you're commenting that you're grabbing your shows from torrents - I'm going to go out on a limb and assume they're not torrents set up by the studios at $0.99/episode for rent? - and then rudely wonder what is 'wrong with' us for looking at TV show pricing? Paying doesn't fit your needs apparently, but if others think maybe the studios should consider at least getting iTunes prices in line with other channels that we're just off our rockers? Talk about throwing friggin' stones.
I have already pre-ordered my AppleTV and intend to rent a few more shows than I might have just to help ensure that it's a big success, but mostly to spite Warner Bros. and other short sighted greedsters.
Now I'd say back to you: WTF is wrong with you? In one answer you're commenting that you're grabbing your shows from torrents - I'm going to go out on a limb and assume they're not torrents set up by the studios at $0.99/episode for rent? - and then rudely wonder what is 'wrong with' us for looking at TV show pricing? Paying doesn't fit your needs apparently, but if others think maybe the studios should consider at least getting iTunes prices in line with other channels that we're just off our rockers? Talk about throwing friggin’ stones.
Being objective means I can see the viability and usefulness of a business model without needing it myself. I can see why people would want an iPod Touch or a pickup truck, but neither fits my needs and likely never will, yet I am not going onto internet forums stating how foolish it is to create a product that doesn’t fit my particular needs.
At anything more than 99 cents, NO ONE will EVER rent a TV show. Period. It's not a movie. It's not even a SEASON. it's ONE TV show. time to get real.
It's media that has already been subsidized and then some by the commercials that aired with it. the cost involved in the making of the TV show has already been alleviated. Everyone got paid. the show aired and made a profit.
Now, they simply take the existing media, manufacture it to disc and sell it at Best buy, Wal-Mart, etc. with that, they have to pay media cost, graphic design of the exterior as well as the implementation of menus, etc, manufacturing of the box, printing of the literature inside as well as the disc labels and the box art. then they have to pay for the materials of the DVDs and the cases. Then they have to ship. for a season, you are sometimes paying $2 per episode for very popular shows, which is understandable with that cost of manufacturing as shipping. This is all icing on the cake. They are making a good profit on this.
so the TV studios create the show for TV. It airs and does well. THEN they take already created media and package it for even further distribution and make much more from a product they have already made a return on.
Then there is iTunes. the studios have to do basically NOTHING to get it ready for iTunes. The itunes Plus menus are already done. The files were created during DVD manufacturing. there is no box to make, no discs to manufacture and print, no literature to publish, no shipping costs to incur, no shelf space overhead, no designers to pay... nothing. they simply send the files to Apple, who does the work and stores the files on their servers. The TV studios then sit back and watch as their bank accounts accrue revenue from every single purcha... excuse me... RENTAL. And that is a whole other story. Itunes involves even less overhead than Netflix and yet the Studios make way less money back from netflix, yet they want to cry over iTunes? I don't think so. Complaining when someone (Apple) has made it easier than ever for you to make more while doing less is not a way to garner fans (or customers).
this guy either needs to get let go by WB or wake up to reality. I personally won't be renting except once in a great while, as it makes more sense to own, but for thos who prefer to rent, feel free to let this guy know that 99 cents is the limit of what we are willing to pay. Not a cent more. I work a little too hard for my dollar than to let some greedy sleazeball overcharge from something that he has to invest nearly nothing into by the time it gets to my iTunes app.
Music, I will BUY for a dollar, to listen over and over and over again. (won't watch a tv show over and over and over again, thus less value for a tv show, even though it cost more to make)
Music, I won't be 'renting' music to listen to, it wouldn't make any sense.
Know the way to make a cheap Mac? Give up the rights to anything but the OS. Stop making hardware that ties to it. Let every fab in the world make hardware that runs the Mac OS. Charge a license from the manufacturers only. Then we'd have Macs that are identical to the competition. And a larger slice of the market.
And start looking like everything else.
If the Mac were like everyone else's PC, the issue would moot. I like Apple products because they are better than everyone else. The clones in the past affected the brand badly. I know because it had me thinking of getting Windose because my clone constantly crashed. I instead got a real Mac and the crashes disappeared. The Mac ecosystem is the best solution for people who just want to use a computer.
But you do understand, don't you, that you would be renting in lieu of Dish, not in addition to it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers
That is only 4 or 5 episodes per show for $70 via Dish... right now, you are paying about $2 per episode...
Apple's model will cut your bill in half.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers
So... $168 a year is too much? Most people pay $700 a year for cable... just sayin...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmythe00
I hear you but we already get those 7 shows now...for $70 via Dish. What we're want/hope is to get those shows and only those shows for say....$30-$40. If Apple TV can get that to us, that'll just be one more Apple product in a long list of Apple products in our house.
Also, in one extreme case we even wait a year to see Dexter on Netflix vs paying the $11 to watch it on showtime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmythe00
Between me and my girl we watch...7 shows. At 24 episodes a season that's 168 bucks/season!!! And that doesn't include the BS channels you get with Dish.
If Apple or anyone else wants a model like this to work they need to charge something like 4.99 a season! Anything more and it really doesn't pay to switch from my $70 Dish plan. $24/season is just way too much.
Using logic will only confuse him more than he already is. He just doesn't understand the concept of using streaming to REPLACE the monthly Dish subscription.
Mr. Executive, meet the market. In fact, 99 cents is probably too high but stick to your guns, lose money, and do some power point presentations showing how your company's losses were not your fault. After all, you have your golden parachute under the desk so it's all good.
It's precisely this kind of rubbish that makes me wonder how I even survived for a few years in the corporate world.
Does this guy know how easy it is to download TV shows on torrents? With RSS, its virtually automatic. Plus because TV is free-to-air and available streaming, people also feel much less guilty about "pirating" TV shows compared to movies.
As soon as 99c TV show rentals were available I thought I'd finally catch up with Lost final season, and in HD as well. That's because I missed the swarm when Lost was out, and it's a pain to get good, fast HD torrents. No regrets from me. I guess that's $15 or so that went to ABC that WB just doesn't give a shite about.
Business seems to be in two modes. The first is establishing it, which is very different from the second, which is sitting on your butt when you're big in the industry and your just circulating capital around and playing musical chairs with top management.
And don't forget as well that the 99c rentals are HDCP protected for HD shows. Absolutely ridiculous, it means you can't connect your Mac laptop to a big screen via VGA or DVI, you have to use HDMI and a HDMI HDCP TV or monitor, otherwise no big screen 99c viewing for you... Ironically, this is only restricted on newer Macs with miniDisplayPort. An older Macbook with miniDVI is not affected.
There are some serious, fundamental flaws in the media and games distribution industry where they continue to PUNISH people that actually want to legitimately ACTUALLY SINCERELY AND HONESTLY GIVE YOU THEIR MONEY FOR A PRODUCT.
Apple is not perfect but without iTunes store for music going DRM free for music and music videos, the music industry would be in bad, bad shape. At least the movie studios are slowly coming on board, DRM'ed though... A pity the standard of movies have utterly gone down the toilet.
And don't get me started on global distribution and availability.
You can buy them on DVD for apx 1.50 an episode and get extras and bonus crap.
You're missing the fact that they're unlikely to rent an episode more than once and the $1.50-$2.00 may be more in line with what they'd like to see as a minimum sale. On a dvd you're obviously buying the whole seasons, even if half the episodes sucked, so it's not really the same thing. The extras and stuff are just there to entice people who are fans of the show that have already watched most of these on cable. Having rentals at numbers like $.99 is obviously designing to a price point, which may or may not accommodate the margins they are used to. I have a feeling they want to maintain some kind of precedence in pricing here as it may be harder to increase pricing over time than it is for cable companies to raise the subscription cost. You may eventually see a subscription model emerge from one of these sources as it guarantees a minimum sale /season.
How much is the DVD for this week?s episode of The Universe on total eclipses? I?m going on a flight tomorrow and I want to watch it on the plane.
Except you forget that some people don't care if they watch the episode later, they are more than happy to wait until the DVD release and watch them all in one go.
You're missing the fact that they're unlikely to rent an episode more than once and the $1.50-$2.00 may be more in line with what they'd like to see as a minimum sale. On a dvd you're obviously buying the whole seasons, even if half the episodes sucked, so it's not really the same thing. The extras and stuff are just there to entice people who are fans of the show that have already watched most of these on cable. Having rentals at numbers like $.99 is obviously designing to a price point, which may or may not accommodate the margins they are used to. I have a feeling they want to maintain some kind of precedence in pricing here as it may be harder to increase pricing over time than it is for cable companies to raise the subscription cost. You may eventually see a subscription model emerge from one of these sources as it guarantees a minimum sale /season.
But they have to think about volume. Sure, HD TV episodes are $2.99, so you make gross revenue of $2.99 per episode.
But... If 4 people rent the episode compared to 1 person buying the episode, then you've made more revenue.
It is true that it can be difficult digitally to increase prices, but at the same time as the Internet spreads in reach, bandwidth, and so on, more and more torrenting happens.
So it's a decision the media companies have to make. Just like the publishers. Steve suggests price it affordably and go for volume.
Is 1 person buying 1 HD episode good? Or is 10 people renting it better because it is more affordable, makes more sense to the market, and media companies make more money.
Perhaps at the end of the day the resistance is because they don't want to cede more control to Apple, even though it shouldn't be thought of that way.
Give AppleTV and TV rentals (remember iPad has no access to TV rentals *yet* because it needs at least iOS 4.1) until June 2011 and when WB and others see the numbers ABC and Fox are doing with their TV rentals, they'll relent. Either way by then these TV media excess probably would have golden-parachuted out the window for whatever reason.
Remember the TV rental ecosystem is not just about AppleTV. It covers Mac, PC, iPhone, iPod, and most importantly, starting in a few months time, iPad... I can't imagine a better platform for HD TV show rentals than an iPad for catching up with a few episodes you missed, or a season, it you're the iPad demographic. AppleTV is the sharp point of the spear but iPad is the shaft in this case.
LIke most things with Apple, all it needs is someone (in this case Apple, ABC and Fox) to prove a point and the dominoes will fall in due time. Or, to repeat myself, there'll be so much management change at various companies anyway things will be different through 2011.
Full package digital cable costs $2/day. If WB truly expects me to pay that much for a single episode they're nuts.
But then they get to sell commercial time and make between $.75 and $3.50 per viewer per program. They're not just pulling numbers out of their asses - why would they want to make less money per viewer than they already are? You also have to consider that every viewer who rents via iTunes or GoogleTV is one less person who shows up in the ratings, which leads to less leverage when dealing with distributors, advertisers, etc etc.
Comments
Completely agree. I'm paying $1 a day for DISH, and this idiot wants me to pay $3 for one episode of one show?!?!?!?! By far one of the more absurd things I have ever heard.
Well, the WB has been in and out of bankruptcy, so what do you expect? Business judgment?
Although I totally agree with this, I have to think that Apple itself plays this game. I'd like a Macbook Pro, but it's too expensive for me. If you have the only game in town, people who really want to play will pay it. You may lose volume profit but, like Apple, gain high revenue. Granted $0.99 is way to high for a episode that may be good or junk, but it's their product and they have the right to price it. I personally think the studios are stupid and will regret their choice in the long term, but have you paid $5.00 for a medium bag of popcorn or $3.00 for half filled small box of candy in the theater lately? That on top of almost 10 bucks for the ticket. Yet people keep paying it!
Know the way to make a cheap Mac? Give up the rights to anything but the OS. Stop making hardware that ties to it. Let every fab in the world make hardware that runs the Mac OS. Charge a license from the manufacturers only. Then we'd have Macs that are identical to the competition. And a larger slice of the market.
And start looking like everything else.
Greed is going to bite them in the ass.
99 cents is too high. $22 for a season? To rent? Do we have to hand over our first born, too?
I won't be dropping cable any time soon. Sure I have to endure commercials, but I find them a very useful break to deal with dinner and family. When I watch PBS I inevitably miss important action while I stir something on the stove, get a kid into pajamas, use the bathroom, etc. I know digital downloads would solve the pausing the show problem, but PBS shows aren't available on iTunes.
Cable gives me:
1. a choice of 24 hour cartoon channels for the kids
2. live sports
3. local news
4. game shows I would never pay for
5. $15/month off the cost of my internet and phone
If I miss an episode of a favourite drama I must have been doing something important. I can't imagine paying extra and trying to find time outside my normal TV watching hours to see it. I have far better things to do with my time and money.
Why isn't PBS TV on iTunes, I wonder? PBS needs the money.
Sure, for live sports, fine. Cartoon channels, fine.
I think cable subscribers need freedom of choice. A la carte is the way. So you'd take ESPN, live sports, you'd want the local channels -- you can get those on antennas, you know, great picture, uncompressed 1080i -- but do you want the whole Comedy channel, or just "The Daily Show"? Everything else is like the app store. Otherwise, you pay just for whatever speed of cable you want. And that price should stay the same whether you want cable or not.
It's the coercion I don't like. I want the basic channels. I'd buy a few, like the news channels and Comedy Central, and maybe HBO. Why am I paying for the disgusting, stupid channels? Why should I be subjected to Kim Kardashian and her mentally challenged family?
When digital overtakes the crappy old cable world, turning on the TV will be a menu of choices. Your free podcasts and TV shows paid for with ads, the ones you buy, the "group orders," like the whole ongoing season of Mad Men or whatever, and some free samples in the program store.
What do you need the top-down broadcast model for? Live events. Actual news as it breaks. Making a Skype call to your girlfriend. Get it?
1) The networks currently make money from cable TV companies, who force consumers to pay high monthly fees for a package of hundreds of channels, most of which the consumers don't want.. The networks make additional money from selling ads on all those channels, including the unwanted ones. If they were to facilitate Apple's a la carte business model, this would reduce the number of people willing to pay for cable, thereby threatening their two main revenue streams. Of course, this ignores the fact that cable TV's days are numbered, but then corporate executives (especially those in the entertainment industry) are rarely known for their strategic, visionary thinking. Their compensation packages are based on maintaining their stock price and showing profits from one quarter to the next - not planning for their companies' long term survival and profitability.
2) As a side note to #1, advertising rates are based on bullshit ratings services like Nielsen. A shift in viewership to digital devices would come with highly detailed and accurate analytics that would reveal just how little people care about most of their programming, destroying advertising rates for said programs.
.
I hear you but we already get those 7 shows now...for $70 via Dish. What we're want/hope is to get those shows and only those shows for say....$30-$40. If Apple TV can get that to us, that'll just be one more Apple product in a long list of Apple products in our house.
7 shows x 4 weeks = 28$ per month on apple tv 99c rentals. So you get those shows for say 28 per month maybe...
WTF is wrong with some of you? You?re comparing TV shows that have been off the air for years to the ability to rent or buys shows the day after they air.
OK, first off that's a nice and rude comment, but here's the deal:
1st off, iTunes is _selling_ those same older shows for WAY more than you can buy them on DVD - oh wait, the episodes cost the same amount as NEW shows! - which indicates to me that the studios are totally jacking the prices on iTunes.
Secondly, the fact that there is NO pricing allowance for 1 hour vs. 1/2 hour shows indicating there's a certain level of price fixing - or are you under the impression that networks run the same number of ads normally in 1 hour as in 1/2 hour? I'd get pricing by popularity as judged by Nielsen ratings since they get higher rates for ads, but that's not what's going on, is it?
Finally, based on your comment:
I usually get my TV shows for torrents and never watch actual TV, but that doesn?t mean that this option is overpriced or stupid because it doesn?t fit my needs.
Now I'd say back to you: WTF is wrong with you? In one answer you're commenting that you're grabbing your shows from torrents - I'm going to go out on a limb and assume they're not torrents set up by the studios at $0.99/episode for rent? - and then rudely wonder what is 'wrong with' us for looking at TV show pricing? Paying doesn't fit your needs apparently, but if others think maybe the studios should consider at least getting iTunes prices in line with other channels that we're just off our rockers? Talk about throwing friggin' stones.
I have already pre-ordered my AppleTV and intend to rent a few more shows than I might have just to help ensure that it's a big success, but mostly to spite Warner Bros. and other short sighted greedsters.
Ditto!
Now I'd say back to you: WTF is wrong with you? In one answer you're commenting that you're grabbing your shows from torrents - I'm going to go out on a limb and assume they're not torrents set up by the studios at $0.99/episode for rent? - and then rudely wonder what is 'wrong with' us for looking at TV show pricing? Paying doesn't fit your needs apparently, but if others think maybe the studios should consider at least getting iTunes prices in line with other channels that we're just off our rockers? Talk about throwing friggin’ stones.
Being objective means I can see the viability and usefulness of a business model without needing it myself. I can see why people would want an iPod Touch or a pickup truck, but neither fits my needs and likely never will, yet I am not going onto internet forums stating how foolish it is to create a product that doesn’t fit my particular needs.
At anything more than 99 cents, NO ONE will EVER rent a TV show. Period. It's not a movie. It's not even a SEASON. it's ONE TV show. time to get real.
It's media that has already been subsidized and then some by the commercials that aired with it. the cost involved in the making of the TV show has already been alleviated. Everyone got paid. the show aired and made a profit.
Now, they simply take the existing media, manufacture it to disc and sell it at Best buy, Wal-Mart, etc. with that, they have to pay media cost, graphic design of the exterior as well as the implementation of menus, etc, manufacturing of the box, printing of the literature inside as well as the disc labels and the box art. then they have to pay for the materials of the DVDs and the cases. Then they have to ship. for a season, you are sometimes paying $2 per episode for very popular shows, which is understandable with that cost of manufacturing as shipping. This is all icing on the cake. They are making a good profit on this.
so the TV studios create the show for TV. It airs and does well. THEN they take already created media and package it for even further distribution and make much more from a product they have already made a return on.
Then there is iTunes. the studios have to do basically NOTHING to get it ready for iTunes. The itunes Plus menus are already done. The files were created during DVD manufacturing. there is no box to make, no discs to manufacture and print, no literature to publish, no shipping costs to incur, no shelf space overhead, no designers to pay... nothing. they simply send the files to Apple, who does the work and stores the files on their servers. The TV studios then sit back and watch as their bank accounts accrue revenue from every single purcha... excuse me... RENTAL. And that is a whole other story. Itunes involves even less overhead than Netflix and yet the Studios make way less money back from netflix, yet they want to cry over iTunes? I don't think so. Complaining when someone (Apple) has made it easier than ever for you to make more while doing less is not a way to garner fans (or customers).
this guy either needs to get let go by WB or wake up to reality. I personally won't be renting except once in a great while, as it makes more sense to own, but for thos who prefer to rent, feel free to let this guy know that 99 cents is the limit of what we are willing to pay. Not a cent more. I work a little too hard for my dollar than to let some greedy sleazeball overcharge from something that he has to invest nearly nothing into by the time it gets to my iTunes app.
It's not worth it.
I will NOT be BUYING any singular tv show.
It's not worth it.
Music, I will BUY for a dollar, to listen over and over and over again. (won't watch a tv show over and over and over again, thus less value for a tv show, even though it cost more to make)
Music, I won't be 'renting' music to listen to, it wouldn't make any sense.
Know the way to make a cheap Mac? Give up the rights to anything but the OS. Stop making hardware that ties to it. Let every fab in the world make hardware that runs the Mac OS. Charge a license from the manufacturers only. Then we'd have Macs that are identical to the competition. And a larger slice of the market.
And start looking like everything else.
If the Mac were like everyone else's PC, the issue would moot. I like Apple products because they are better than everyone else. The clones in the past affected the brand badly. I know because it had me thinking of getting Windose because my clone constantly crashed. I instead got a real Mac and the crashes disappeared. The Mac ecosystem is the best solution for people who just want to use a computer.
But you do understand, don't you, that you would be renting in lieu of Dish, not in addition to it?
That is only 4 or 5 episodes per show for $70 via Dish... right now, you are paying about $2 per episode...
Apple's model will cut your bill in half.
So... $168 a year is too much? Most people pay $700 a year for cable... just sayin...
I hear you but we already get those 7 shows now...for $70 via Dish. What we're want/hope is to get those shows and only those shows for say....$30-$40. If Apple TV can get that to us, that'll just be one more Apple product in a long list of Apple products in our house.
Also, in one extreme case we even wait a year to see Dexter on Netflix vs paying the $11 to watch it on showtime.
Between me and my girl we watch...7 shows. At 24 episodes a season that's 168 bucks/season!!! And that doesn't include the BS channels you get with Dish.
If Apple or anyone else wants a model like this to work they need to charge something like 4.99 a season! Anything more and it really doesn't pay to switch from my $70 Dish plan. $24/season is just way too much.
Using logic will only confuse him more than he already is. He just doesn't understand the concept of using streaming to REPLACE the monthly Dish subscription.
Mr. Executive, meet the market. In fact, 99 cents is probably too high but stick to your guns, lose money, and do some power point presentations showing how your company's losses were not your fault. After all, you have your golden parachute under the desk so it's all good.
It's precisely this kind of rubbish that makes me wonder how I even survived for a few years in the corporate world.
Does this guy know how easy it is to download TV shows on torrents? With RSS, its virtually automatic. Plus because TV is free-to-air and available streaming, people also feel much less guilty about "pirating" TV shows compared to movies.
As soon as 99c TV show rentals were available I thought I'd finally catch up with Lost final season, and in HD as well. That's because I missed the swarm when Lost was out, and it's a pain to get good, fast HD torrents. No regrets from me. I guess that's $15 or so that went to ABC that WB just doesn't give a shite about.
Business seems to be in two modes. The first is establishing it, which is very different from the second, which is sitting on your butt when you're big in the industry and your just circulating capital around and playing musical chairs with top management.
And don't forget as well that the 99c rentals are HDCP protected for HD shows. Absolutely ridiculous, it means you can't connect your Mac laptop to a big screen via VGA or DVI, you have to use HDMI and a HDMI HDCP TV or monitor, otherwise no big screen 99c viewing for you...
There are some serious, fundamental flaws in the media and games distribution industry where they continue to PUNISH people that actually want to legitimately ACTUALLY SINCERELY AND HONESTLY GIVE YOU THEIR MONEY FOR A PRODUCT.
Apple is not perfect but without iTunes store for music going DRM free for music and music videos, the music industry would be in bad, bad shape. At least the movie studios are slowly coming on board, DRM'ed though... A pity the standard of movies have utterly gone down the toilet.
And don't get me started on global distribution and availability.
You can buy them on DVD for apx 1.50 an episode and get extras and bonus crap.
You're missing the fact that they're unlikely to rent an episode more than once and the $1.50-$2.00 may be more in line with what they'd like to see as a minimum sale. On a dvd you're obviously buying the whole seasons, even if half the episodes sucked, so it's not really the same thing. The extras and stuff are just there to entice people who are fans of the show that have already watched most of these on cable. Having rentals at numbers like $.99 is obviously designing to a price point, which may or may not accommodate the margins they are used to. I have a feeling they want to maintain some kind of precedence in pricing here as it may be harder to increase pricing over time than it is for cable companies to raise the subscription cost. You may eventually see a subscription model emerge from one of these sources as it guarantees a minimum sale /season.
How much is the DVD for this week?s episode of The Universe on total eclipses? I?m going on a flight tomorrow and I want to watch it on the plane.
Except you forget that some people don't care if they watch the episode later, they are more than happy to wait until the DVD release and watch them all in one go.
You're missing the fact that they're unlikely to rent an episode more than once and the $1.50-$2.00 may be more in line with what they'd like to see as a minimum sale. On a dvd you're obviously buying the whole seasons, even if half the episodes sucked, so it's not really the same thing. The extras and stuff are just there to entice people who are fans of the show that have already watched most of these on cable. Having rentals at numbers like $.99 is obviously designing to a price point, which may or may not accommodate the margins they are used to. I have a feeling they want to maintain some kind of precedence in pricing here as it may be harder to increase pricing over time than it is for cable companies to raise the subscription cost. You may eventually see a subscription model emerge from one of these sources as it guarantees a minimum sale /season.
But they have to think about volume. Sure, HD TV episodes are $2.99, so you make gross revenue of $2.99 per episode.
But... If 4 people rent the episode compared to 1 person buying the episode, then you've made more revenue.
It is true that it can be difficult digitally to increase prices, but at the same time as the Internet spreads in reach, bandwidth, and so on, more and more torrenting happens.
So it's a decision the media companies have to make. Just like the publishers. Steve suggests price it affordably and go for volume.
Is 1 person buying 1 HD episode good? Or is 10 people renting it better because it is more affordable, makes more sense to the market, and media companies make more money.
Perhaps at the end of the day the resistance is because they don't want to cede more control to Apple, even though it shouldn't be thought of that way.
Give AppleTV and TV rentals (remember iPad has no access to TV rentals *yet* because it needs at least iOS 4.1) until June 2011 and when WB and others see the numbers ABC and Fox are doing with their TV rentals, they'll relent. Either way by then these TV media excess probably would have golden-parachuted out the window for whatever reason.
Remember the TV rental ecosystem is not just about AppleTV. It covers Mac, PC, iPhone, iPod, and most importantly, starting in a few months time, iPad... I can't imagine a better platform for HD TV show rentals than an iPad for catching up with a few episodes you missed, or a season, it you're the iPad demographic. AppleTV is the sharp point of the spear but iPad is the shaft in this case.
LIke most things with Apple, all it needs is someone (in this case Apple, ABC and Fox) to prove a point and the dominoes will fall in due time. Or, to repeat myself, there'll be so much management change at various companies anyway things will be different through 2011.
Hindsight is 20/20.
Full package digital cable costs $2/day. If WB truly expects me to pay that much for a single episode they're nuts.
But then they get to sell commercial time and make between $.75 and $3.50 per viewer per program. They're not just pulling numbers out of their asses - why would they want to make less money per viewer than they already are? You also have to consider that every viewer who rents via iTunes or GoogleTV is one less person who shows up in the ratings, which leads to less leverage when dealing with distributors, advertisers, etc etc.