Time Warner CEO says Apple 99-cent rental model 'jeopardizes' sales

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 85
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,759member
    Frankly, there is damn little network TV I care about. And I just hooked up an HD antenna to my Tivo S3 and the network (and 5 PBS stations with their sub channels - yes, I am lucky!) come down just fine. In fact, even though I have read for years how over compressed CATV is, now that i have finally been motivated enough to hook an HD antenna up, the difference is simply stunning. The cable co's should be ashamed in calling their low bit rate over-compressed crap HD



    And Comcast buying NBC? The suckiest of the networks? Oooh, big threat in withholding content there, Comcast



    And let them try to block ipTV - screwing with TV is the one thing that might get the average otherwise apaetic American out to vote!



    Sad but true. That made me flashback to "PC: You have come to a sad realization - confirm or deny?"
  • Reply 22 of 85
    What's killing sales is the studios charging more to buy a season via iTunes than it costs to buy the season on DVD.



    The digital episodes require no manufacturing, no packaging, no shipping. Apple looks after the transaction details and hosting, we look after the delivery with an internet connection that we pay for, yet the studios want us to pay more than the physical product? All the studios need to do is give Apple the data and wait for the money to roll in. If anything the downloads should be cheaper!



    THIS is killing sales.



    I'm not even sure that I'd rent a show for 99 cents!



    The studios are like the record companies... Clueless... And greedy.
  • Reply 23 of 85
    mactelmactel Posts: 1,275member
    Ya know, maybe Apple can entice these folks by offering to place TV quality ads in with their TV episodes and a part of that ad revenue would go to the studios. I don't mind so much in watching ads. The movie theaters place a lot of ads in before you actually watch the movie yet people still seem to go out to see the movies.
  • Reply 24 of 85
    $1.99 for a "30" minute sitcom that is actually 22 minutes is a little steep, don't you think....
  • Reply 25 of 85
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,212member
    In this era of "cost centers", every episode must stand on its own.
  • Reply 26 of 85
    I agree. It's too high. Between the web, Netflix, and Hulu, 99 cents for one lousy show is Way Too High.



    That's what he's saying, right? I didn't read past the headline.
  • Reply 27 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by davesmall View Post


    Bewkes elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor.



    99 cents is too expensive for something you can get free with your DVR.



    Correction. Something you've already bought and paid for with your subscription to Comcast (or another ISP).



    Apple is offering content providers extra income from viewers who forgot to set their DVR or discovered the show after it had run. This is a layer of extra income and not competition.



    You might to rethink your post.



    You paid for or are renting a PVR. You pay for your cable/sat that is used to pay for these huge fees they pay to get access to these channels. Then you also have commercials within these shows.



    None of it is free. Don?t be so myopic to think everyone could stop paying for cable, just get free downloads and the cable/sat would still be able to pay the networks for access to their content and that advertisers would still be willing to pay the same for content that could have the ads easily removed.



    Where exactly do you think the profits wil come from? An á la carte service for a rented episode. No! They depend on the bulk payments from cable and sat companies. You can through out all the ifs and buts about people renting x-many shows but that is at the risk of destroying large guaranteed lump payments. No one here would be that foolish with their own finances. or maybe you would be. Who here takes their paycheck and buys lottery tickets with most of it?



    What the Warner CEO is exactly what I?ve been saying is the issue here and that isn?t likely to change.



    PS: Why do people keep comparing these services as being identical when they are very different in every expect for the fact they contain the same content. One is sent at the time of broadcast, the other can be rented at will after the first day. One is limited to your PVR, the other can be sent to you AppleTV, iDevice, PC with iTunes and moved between them with ease. If I am going on a flight and the inflight entertainment is crap (as it usually is, not to mention the horrible displays they use on seat backs) I?d be happy to rent some TVs shows to pass the time. It?s been awhile, but I purchased them in the past specifically for this task. Who here is going to argue that taking your HDTV and PVR on a trip is viable or that it?s so easy for the average person to hack your PVR, connect it to a network, convert the MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 and then add to iTunes and sync to iDevice. Get real!
  • Reply 28 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by maclvr03 View Post


    $1.99 for a "30" minute sitcom that is actually 22 minutes is a little steep, don't you think....



    That is about what I pay for a movie at the theater, per person. Not to mention I have to buy their expensive yet crappy food, and then I can?t be on my couch or in my bed. And then all those other people around me, and it starting at a time that may not be ideal for me. Then there is the inability to pause it when I need to relieve myself during the 3rd act because that 32oz soda and salty popcorn has gone right through me.



    Who in there right mind would pay for that kind of hassle when they can just wait 6-12 months for it to hit RedBox where it?s $1 for the disc.



    See what I did there? There are reasons why a service might be beneficial or not beneficial, but not finding value in it yourself isn?t a reason to discount its value as a whole.
  • Reply 29 of 85
    Apple is trying to make these people money and some are balking. That makes me sick!!

    And of course if others hop on board with Apple and they start making bank, then the shareholders of the networks holding back are going to demand they ride the APPLE gravy train.

    And let's not forget those shows are paid by advertisers!! once they run the first time the freaking show has been paid for. So when a rerun happens that show has been paid for and is fair game. And I'm not stupid, syndication and them freaking box sets bring in a lot of cash but so what. 99cents is the magic number and millions of people will rent those shows and rent those show and buy the box stuff. And watch it when it gets syndicated.
  • Reply 30 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by johnfrombeyond View Post


    People don't want to own TV shows, they would rather rent and not deal with storage etc. Networks are greedy, they don't understand elastic demand. Lower the price for rentals = more revenues.



    How many movies have you rented the last 5 years? How many have you purchased?



    Case closed...



    Some people want to own some shows. I have a girlfriend who bought all of the Friends DVDs. I have stuff like Futurama and The Night Stalker and The Twilight Zone. I'll be watching some of those episodes many times. My brother, on the other hand, doesn't own any TV shows on DVD.



    And my ratio of movies I purchase to movies I rent is probably 10:1 or more. Different people want different things.



    So just because the economics from YOUR standpoint are obvious, remember that you're not the only consumer these networks have. It will help you to calm down a little and realize those guys might have a point. They might still be wrong, but they have a point.



    The problem is that your statement "Lower the price for rentals = more revenues" may or may not in fact be true. Lowering the price will almost certainly equal more acquisition of product. But if the new price is 1/2, then it has to result in double the acquisition for revenues to be more. If the new price is 1/3, it has to triple acquisition. The networks don't think it will. Judging from the pathetic quality of most of the TV shows out there, they may actually be right. And if rentals increase at the expense of viewership, then they can't sell advertising for the same rate, so the increased rentals have to make up that difference as well.



    Steve Jobs knows he's fighting a very entrenched business model. I think it could well benefit from being shaken up, and I hope he's the guy who ends up being right. But the networks do some extremely shrewd calculations.
  • Reply 31 of 85
    So the interesting question that no one has discussed yet is how much Netflix and Amazon are paying the non-Apple networks per video to get the expanded access they have.
  • Reply 32 of 85
    Is there any question about why people are using bittorrent to watch instead of paying $1.99? And it's Apple that's got the pricing not quite right, eh?
  • Reply 33 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    "How can you justify renting your first-run TV shows individually for 99 cents an episode and thereby jeopardize the sale of the same shows as a series to branded networks that pay hundreds of millions of dollars and make those shows available to loyal viewers for free?"




    1. those networks are all pretty much cable channels which means that we have to pay to get them.



    2. Lets really look at how many shows go syndie these days. Not many due to the serial nature of so many shows. Syndie deals go to shows that have great to super ratings that can be viewed in any order, even leaving out episodes that might be 'controversial' etc. So pretty much the Law and Order shows, some cheesy sci-fi stuff that was picked up straight into Syndie for something like SyFy and that's pretty much it.

    3. don't all those box sets hurt potential deals.



    Quote:

    News Corp President Chase Carey views Fox's participation as a "short-term test."



    Much better attitude. Cause then they will see that they are getting tons of rentals and zero change on the ratings since only 25k folks are counted anyway. So it's win-win. Just like it was with the day after purchasing
  • Reply 34 of 85
    They said the same thing about piracy. \



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by davesmall View Post


    99 cents is too expensive for something you can get free with your DVR.



    What is this? The early 20th century...
  • Reply 35 of 85
    These guys have their heads in the sand. Do they really get more than $0.99 for each viewer that watches every show on TV? I seriously doubt that. They will make more money renting shows in the long run.



    The old model is dying. Dead already in my mind as I don't watch TV at all. All my show watching is done through Netflix streaming, Netfilx DVD rentals and soon to be TV rentals through iTunes. If I can't see a show in one of those ways, then I just don't see it. I WILL NOT watch commercials or pay exorbitant cable fees. Those days are long gone.
  • Reply 36 of 85
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by johnfrombeyond View Post


    How many movies have you rented the last 5 years? How many have you purchased?



    Case closed...



    Rented about 100, purchased around 400. What was your point?
  • Reply 37 of 85
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    I think Bewkes' remarks make it clear that he sees his customers as being "branded networks" rather than viewers, which might explain why so much of his product blows.
  • Reply 38 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post




    NBC Universal exec Jeff Zucker believes the pricing "devalues" his company's content. "We do not think 99 cents is the right price point," Zucker said.




    Hmmm - BitTorrent devalues your content even more....
  • Reply 39 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by johnfrombeyond View Post


    How many movies have you rented the last 5 years? How many have you purchased?



    Case closed...



    Last year : about 50 rentals and a similar amount in purchases. I actually like to have a physical support - yeah very 80s of me. But think about it this way : one day when you're old and grey and you handle your movie collection to your kid, what would you rather give - the boxes with the DVD/BR, an external Harddisk or a piece pf paper saying : My login credentials....
  • Reply 40 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by yensid98 View Post


    These guys have their heads in the sand. Do they really get more than $0.99 for each viewer that watches every show on TV? I seriously doubt that. They will make more money renting shows in the long run.



    The old model is dying. Dead already in my mind as I don't watch TV at all. All my show watching is done through Netflix streaming, Netfilx DVD rentals and soon to be TV rentals through iTunes. If I can't see a show in one of those ways, then I just don't see it. I WILL NOT watch commercials or pay exorbitant cable fees. Those days are long gone.



    You could be my long lost twin. Not only won't I watch commercials, but I can't even be bothered to fast forward them. Repeat: There is nothing so good on tv to make me watch commercials or even be bothered to pick up the remote. Case closed! Well, maybe the world series or some such thing but the way Fox broadcasts it (beyonfpd horrible), I may even extend my rule to it.
Sign In or Register to comment.