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!
I can buy any DVD, or an entire series, pop in the DVD, fire up handbrake, and tell it to give me an iPhone compatible format, which I just drop into iTunes. I can take it anywhere, on my iPhone, my MediaPC, or my Desktop. It takes no skill to encode a DVD these days. There are numerous 1-Click turn key solutions that are free.
The executives are clinging to a price point that is no longer sustainable. I can stream this stuff from Netflix on my phone, desktop, or media PC as well, plus I get an unlimited number of times to stream or order a DVD for 8 dollars a month, for any show out of the thousands that they offer. If I were to get charged $2.00 per episode I streamed or for every DVD I ordered, it would cost a small fortune.
With his line of thinking, movies on DVD's, Pay per view, streaming, or cable tv are taking money from movie theaters by selling or renting at a much lower price.
I don't go to movie theaters anymore. I wait for the movie to come out on DVD and rent it via Netflix for $9 a month.
So if it costs me $40 to take my wife and two kids to a theater, and I'm paying less than $1 per movie a month instead...
How do movie studios not go out of business?
Why are studios allowing this obvious hit to their revenues?
Time Warner and the rest of these greedy morons need to get on board before they're left on the side of the road.
The list of content that won't be available looks like it's really going to kill this product. Even if it didn't though I still think the new Apple TV is to little to late.
Particularly in the UK we already have a lot of on demand services. The big channels do it through the internet, BBC do it through almost everything (internet, set top box, Nintendo Wii, iPhone, cable box's) and next year there are meant to be set top box's offering on demand tv from all the big channels as well again for free. The cable companies are also offering on demand programs already, broadband companies like BT offer on demand set top box's (but unlike apple the box is free and you can also subscribe to channels like sports which you kinda want live making it more of a complete package).
So Apple offering the most expensive box, that you then have to pay per program (how do you flick onto a program to see what it's like if you have to pay for it), and also less content than everyone else isn't particularly exciting, as it's going to cost a decent amount and you still need the tv package you have at the moment. They may say it's a hobby which was fine when it was all about stuff you own, now it's about on demand content which is a big market but there products by far the worst except for being the nicest looking box.
If those Studios had any brain they would at least put up old shows at 99 cents rentals. How can you refuse Apple 99 cents and then put the same shows on hulu or netflix or for free streaming on there website?
I can understand some studios dont want prime time shows available 1 day after airing, they could add more delay then, maybe a week. Apple could ease off on the delay for some studios.
If the 99 cents shows fail, Apple will need to open up the AppleTV app store so we can get them through other sites (like directly from the studios website, with ads). If studios dont want to make apps, then Apple could enable safari with Flash on the AppleTV and we could go get them anyway.
Apple is making most of its profit selling hardware anyway. Imo a 99 $ AppleTV with games and apps would be the best selling set-top box in the world.
CEO says "...that pay hundreds of millions of dollars and make those shows available to loyal viewers for free?" Bewkes said.
Nothing is FREE .. I pay more for EVERYTHING EVERYDAY that is advertised on your TV shows so that you can pay millions of dollars to actors and have long lunches at your favorite trendy restaurant.
I pay about $70 every month to have "FREE" TV piped into my home.. Free is a s ridiculous statement. "Free" TV requires I watch your shows when you schedule them first. "Free" TV requires I sit through most commercials.
Bewkes and other network rocket scientists get the picture, they just don't want to admit their model no longer works well, and unwilling to change.
I can buy any DVD, or an entire series, pop in the DVD, fire up handbrake, and tell it to give me an iPhone compatible format, which I just drop into iTunes. I can take it anywhere, on my iPhone, my MediaPC, or my Desktop. It takes no skill to encode a DVD these days. There are numerous 1-Click turn key solutions that are free.
The executives are clinging to a price point that is no longer sustainable. I can stream this stuff from Netflix on my phone, desktop, or media PC as well, plus I get an unlimited number of times to stream or order a DVD for 8 dollars a month, for any show out of the thousands that they offer. If I were to get charged $2.00 per episode I streamed or for every DVD I ordered, it would cost a small fortune.
It's overpriced in todays environment.
That is irrelevant to the average user who doesn?t want to learn to do that or go through the effort.
That is irrelevant to the services it offers over streaming sites with no local storage and offline viewing like iTunes Store.
That irrelevant for a fast and convenient download, which can often be done at a coffee shop or airport or hotel before you go on a trip. (this I?ve done from iTS and from torrents)
I honestly can?t understand how people can be saying that because it isn?t ideal for them that it can?t possibly be ideal for anyone else. It clearly offers options that the other services don?t.
I'd like to see you try to download a podcast or (God-Forbid) a movie on an Airport/coffee/sandwich shop WiFi network. I can barely check my email on my iPhone from those crappy wifi networks without some lag. With all the users logged on that normal Airport/coffee/sandwich shop networks have. Even ATT's Wifi offered in Business districts? Please, let's get realistic here.
I agree that Handbrake is not for the "average" user, personally I really think Apple must get on the ball and support DVD/BD imports from Discs, just like the music CD's I import. It's been way too long since video was introduced into iTunes. Granted it's not all Apple's issue here, it's the Media Giants that control what content is available for iTunes, but come-on SJ...Get with the plan! I am not going to handbrake, and I'm not going to re-purchase my existing physical content. It's bad enough BD came out and now I have to re-purchase some of that.
Personally, I think it's silly to think the "average" user uses Torrents too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
That is irrelevant to the average user who doesn’t want to learn to do that or go through the effort.
That is irrelevant to the services it offers over streaming sites with no local storage and offline viewing like iTunes Store.
That irrelevant for a fast and convenient download, which can often be done at a coffee shop or airport or hotel before you go on a trip. (this I’ve done from iTS and from torrents)
I honestly can’t understand how people can be saying that because it isn’t ideal for them that it can’t possibly be ideal for anyone else. It clearly offers options that the other services don’t.
That is irrelevant to the average user who doesn?t want to learn to do that or go through the effort.
That is irrelevant to the services it offers over streaming sites with no local storage and offline viewing like iTunes Store.
That irrelevant for a fast and convenient download, which can often be done at a coffee shop or airport or hotel before you go on a trip. (this I?ve done from iTS and from torrents)
I honestly can?t understand how people can be saying that because it isn?t ideal for them that it can?t possibly be ideal for anyone else. It clearly offers options that the other services don?t.
I just bought Fringe season 3 pass on iTunes for 49.99. I have no cable (insane monthly fee), don't have TV anymore. I like to watch stuff on my iMac 27" or iPad. I do not have much time to watch anyway so i can buy 5-6 seasons of shows i like every year and it's still much cheaper than cable. I could buy bluray for about 50, but i need either rip it or watch it on TV both ways involves buying soe tech i don't have anymore and riping bluray will take an insane amount of time.
Oh and of course NO ADS on iTunes + i get to chose when, how and what i want to watch.
I'd like to see you try to download a podcast or (God-Forbid) a movie on an Airport/coffee/sandwich shop WiFi network. I can barely check my email on my iPhone from those crappy wifi networks without some lag. With all the users logged on that normal Airport/coffee/sandwich shop networks have. Even ATT's Wifi offered in Business districts? Please, let's get realistic here.
I?ve had good speeds most of the time at the places I mentioned. Not always, but usually fast enough. Especially at a hotel where I DL it overnight if needed.
But why are those the options? Why not from your home? Why does ripping a DVD or watching on Blu-ray (because it?s the bestest) the only viable options that should exist for all users?
Quote:
I agree that Handbrake is not for the "average" user, personally I really think Apple must get on the ball and support DVD/BD imports from Discs, just like the music CD's I import. It's been way too long since video was introduced into iTunes. Granted it's not all Apple's issue here, it's the Media Giants that control what content is available for iTunes, but come-on SJ...Get with the plan! I am not going to handbrake, and I'm not going to re-purchase my existing physical content. It's bad enough BD came out and now I have to re-purchase some of that.
If the ?Media Giants? control the content and aren?t even okay with 99¢ rentals, which you think is too much anyway then what program does Steve Jobs need to get with? Apple should close up the iTunes Store video services and make it the same type of service as Hulu and Netflix with streaming only? No local storage with offline viewing? Why is this service overlooked when it?s a huge benefit over the others mentioned?
Quote:
Personally, I think it's silly to think the "average" user uses Torrents too.
Um, didn?t say that the average user should torrent. I clearly mentioned what I have done to satisfy my entertainment needs for long trips without internet access.
I just bought Fringe season 3 pass on iTunes for 49.99. I have no cable (insane monthly fee), don't have TV anymore. I like to watch stuff on my iMac 27" or iPad. I do not have much time to watch anyway so i can buy 5-6 seasons of shows i like every year and it's still much cheaper than cable. I could buy bluray for about 50, but i need either rip it or watch it on TV both ways involves buying soe tech i don't have anymore and riping bluray will take an insane amount of time.
Oh and of course NO ADS on iTunes + i get to chose when, how and what i want to watch.
That is a great example for a way this could be used.
I don?t even own a TV, and I will use torrents when I can as it?s just too convenient for me not to. I?ve bought many a TV show in the past, but that is if the content isn?t available via torrents or would take too long to DL. The problem is would only watch these shows once so having an option for ½ price sounds like a deal to me for those rare occasions. As it stands now I have entire seasons of The Unit, 24, and other shows that will likely never watch again but fear I can?t delete because I bought them.
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...
John,
Regarding movies: As an adult, I agree with you. If you have seen a movie once, why bother seeing it again. But....but.....I have kids. They have certain cartoon classics on DVD that they want to watch over and over and over again. I do not want to pay rent each time to see the same movie or TV show over and over and over again. Therefore, I need to continue buying DVDs of classic movies and TV shows.
I refuse to pay $100 a month for 100+ channels on Dish or cable TV, when all I want is three or four channels. Therefore, I want to own select TV shows. I will wait until a full season of a show is available on DVD. And then I buy the entire season. So what if I have to wait until season 2 to buy season 1 of the Sopranos, Rome, or 24 on DVD.
I don't want to waste money on channels that I refuse to watch. What if I only want to subscribe to one or two channels, and nothing more. Unless cable and satellite TV companies are forced to offer subscription per channel, then nothing will change.
I’ve had good speeds most of the time at the places I mentioned. Not always, but usually fast enough. Especially at a hotel where I DL it overnight if needed.
I never said these should be the only options, I just think Apple needs to support imports of our EXISTING physical content already. It's been about 6 years since they introduced video to iTunes. And I was also saying that it's not all Apple's issue. The Media Giants want us to constantly re-purchase content. Because they are Greedy. If you could import existing content, then you could take it everywhere, instead of having to re-purchase or "rent" a movie on-the-go or traveling when you already own on DVD/BD but can't rip it to iTunes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
But why are those the options? Why not from your home? Why does ripping a DVD or watching on Blu-ray (because it’s the bestest) the only viable options that should exist for all users?
I think iTunes should offer rental subscriptions like Amazon or Netflix or now Hulu. that's the program i'm talking about. For the amount of Netflix i watch in a month, I'd have to spend at least $50 - $75 per month on iTunes rentals, that I only pay $18 on Netflix. We get 3-5 discs a week on average, and they are mostly TV series (i.e. True Blood, Star Trek series, etc. sprinkled in with about 3-5 movies we rent per month). Granted when the new seasons of TV are airing we slow down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
If the “Media Giants” control the content and aren’t even okay with 99¢ rentals, which you think is too much anyway then what program does Steve Jobs need to get with? Apple should close up the iTunes Store video services and make it the same type of service as Hulu and Netflix with streaming only? No local storage with offline viewing? Why is this service overlooked when it’s a huge benefit over the others mentioned?
And I did say you said that either. I said it's silly to think that average user actually knows about or regularly uses torrents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Um, didn’t say that the average user should torrent. I clearly mentioned what I have done to satisfy my entertainment needs for long trips without internet access.
I never said these should be the only options, I just think Apple needs to support imports of our EXISTING physical content already. It's been about 6 years since they introduced video to iTunes. And I was also saying that it's not all Apple's issue. The Media Giants want us to constantly re-purchase content. Because they are Greedy. If you could import existing content, then you could take it everywhere, instead of having to re-purchase or "rent" a movie on-the-go or traveling when you already own on DVD/BD but can't rip it to iTunes.
You think Apple needs to support the imports of DVD VOB files in iTunes? Good luck with that.
Quote:
I think iTunes should offer rental subscriptions like Amazon or Netflix or now Hulu. that's the program i'm talking about. For the amount of Netflix i watch in a month, I'd have to spend at least $50 - $75 per month on iTunes rentals, that I only pay $18. We get 3-5 discs a week on average, and they are mostly TV series (i.e. True Blood, Star Trek series, etc. sprinkled in with about 3-5 movies we rent per month). Granted when the new seasons of TV are airing we slow down.
Why do you think Apple hasn’t tried this? Why do you think that copying what the others are doing is a good business model? If there are several others doing it then why not just use their services? You aren’t looking out for Apple’s best interest so why care if there is a service out there that doesn’t fit your needs? I don’t use Netflix because I hate streaming a TV show series just to have some oddball episode not included, but I don’t think Netflix is shit for everybody because of that.
Quote:
And I did say you said that either. I said it's silly to think that average user actually knows about or regularly uses torrents.
Considering what it was in reply to how could anyone not make that association.
The bottom line is iTS has options the other services don’t and has been very successful with video so far. Trying to force it to be like the other services is silly. It’s akin to those that said the iPad will fail because all previous tablets have failed but then also said it will fail because it’s not doing exactly the same thing as the previous tablets. It makes no sense. The issue with the TV rental service is with the networks and their fear of losing their very real and large lump sum payments from networks and advertisers. There is no one-to-one payoff for the content owners. There is a very real risk of one or more going under this inevitable paradigm shift. It’s going to be messy and there is will be a lot of collateral damage affecting everyone, including the consumer as TV show budgets are likely to be crunched when this comes to a head.
I agree that there are a lot of crap networks out there that I would rather not subscribe to, but I do because it's part of a package.
That being said though, I think what a lot of people don't realize is, if TV went 100% a-la-carte, then once you've watched everything once, how do you find out about new shows? With no commercials, how you find out about new content. For my household, 99% of the new content we find out about is either: 1. Commercials or 2. friends/colleagues. That's how I heard about LOST, a commercial. We hardly ever search for new content via internet. Granted every once in a while i stumble on something. But that's about it. If it went the iTunes model, you'd start hearing crickets coming out of your ATV after a while IMO.
Additionally, without Ads and cable/satv/dish companies, we would have no TV to watch. They play a huge part in the broadcasting of new shows. And I think that's what all the Media Giants are afraid will happen. If that happens where to commercials/previews fit in? We all hate those forced video ads that pop-up and we instantly close them if that option is available, but i digress...
Plus Mr. Pig, I find it surprising that you can't watch a movie more than once? You must have a very short attention span. Granted I don't have a huge library, and I thin it out every once in a while, but I do keep at least 50 of my favorites in the collection at all times. With Netflix, I find myself buying less and less movies, because for the price we pay, I can stand to rent movies a couple times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourgoises Pig
John,
Regarding movies: As an adult, I agree with you. If you have seen a movie once, why bother seeing it again. But....but.....I have kids. They have certain cartoon classics on DVD that they want to watch over and over and over again. I do not want to pay rent each time to see the same movie or TV show over and over and over again. Therefore, I need to continue buying DVDs of classic movies and TV shows.
I refuse to pay $100 a month for 100+ channels on Dish or cable TV, when all I want is three or four channels. Therefore, I want to own select TV shows. I will wait until a full season of a show is available on DVD. And then I buy the entire season. So what if I have to wait until season 2 to buy season 1 of the Sopranos, Rome, or 24 on DVD.
I don't want to waste money on channels that I refuse to watch. What if I only want to subscribe to one or two channels, and nothing more. Unless cable and satellite TV companies are forced to offer subscription per channel, then nothing will change.
Dude, you're totally putting a spin on everything I've stated. I offer suggestions and comments related to my best guess of the larger picture/reality, all based on everything i read and hear about a specific topic from friends, family, at work or in the news. However, I do offer my own situations as examples occasionally, since I consider my household a pretty average user family.
You must have good WiFi karma dude, or just travel a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
It’s not luck when you plan well.
No, I never said support VOB. I want support akin to music CD imports into iTunes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
You think Apple needs to support the imports of DVD VOB files in iTunes? Good luck with that.
When did Apple offer subscription services? Never.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Why do you think Apple hasn’t tried this? Why do you think that copying what the others are doing is a good business model? If there are several others doing it then why not just use their services? You aren’t looking out for Apple’s best interest so why care if there is a service out there that doesn’t fit your needs? I don’t use Netflix because I hate streaming a TV show series just to have some oddball episode not included, but I don’t think Netflix is shit for everybody because of that.
now you're lumping me into the "Apple products will all fail crowd", please....
You should read my other comments about media giants, we see eye-to-eye there, friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Considering what it was in reply to how could anyone not make that association.
The bottom line is iTS has options the other services don’t and has been very successful with video so far. Trying to force it to be like the other services is silly. It’s akin to those that said the iPad will fail because all previous tablets have failed but then also said it will fail because it’s not doing exactly the same thing as the previous tablets. It makes no sense. The issue with the TV rental service is with the networks and their fear of losing their very real and large lump sum payments from networks and advertisers. There is no one-to-one payoff for the content owners. There is a very real risk of one or more going under this inevitable paradigm shift. It’s going to be messy and there is will be a lot of collateral damage affecting everyone, including the consumer as TV show budgets are likely to be crunched when this comes to a head.
That is irrelevant to the average user who doesn?t want to learn to do that or go through the effort.
That is irrelevant to the services it offers over streaming sites with no local storage and offline viewing like iTunes Store.
That irrelevant for a fast and convenient download, which can often be done at a coffee shop or airport or hotel before you go on a trip. (this I?ve done from iTS and from torrents)
I honestly can?t understand how people can be saying that because it isn?t ideal for them that it can?t possibly be ideal for anyone else. It clearly offers options that the other services don?t.
Irrelevant to you perhaps. Handbrake is not 'hard' for anyone who knows how to click a button. You open it, You click Source, you select your DVD, you click the Apple TV in the profile list on the right, and then click Start. Takes all of 20 seconds.
You do realize that Apple TV has no local storage anymore meaning streaming is the only option? That essentially makes iTunes a non-competitor on Apple TV if someone has a Netflix account.
Fast and Convenient Download, if you happen to be at home. Public Wifi leaves something to be desired, and 3G isn't much better than public WiFi for downloading hundreds of MB of video.
<Sarcasm>I honestly can?t understand how Solipsism can be saying that because it it's ideal for him, that it must be ideal for anyone else....</Sarcasm>
Agreed, with the sarcasm and the statement. In his defense, we do all do a bit of that. In my last rant to poor Solip, I tried to explain my POV at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy
<Sarcasm>I honestly can’t understand how Solipsism can be saying that because it it's ideal for him, that it must be ideal for anyone else....</Sarcasm>
$1.99 is too high. I can get South Park and other shows online for Free, even those Short Pixar Films that Apple sells online are available for free in HD on YouTube!
The best solution might be to run short ads like SouthParkStudios does, I don't find them annoying, I see ads as a break to run to the kitchen and reload.
So this guy, by complaining that the $1.99 price point is too high and claiming that he can get shows online for free from YouTube, just proves that these the TV execs. are just as big idiots.
The TV execs. complain that .99¢ devalues their programs but they still allow YouTube, Hulu, etc. to stream away their programming for nothing.
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.
Or will never buy cable. It's like the argument that it will eat into DVD/Blu-Ray sales, the people buying an AppleTV probably don't ever buy DVDs of TV shows, they are additional sales over current numbers.
The reason DVD & Blu-Ray sales are hurting has more to do with the increase in pirated content, and much of the casual pirating might actually be avoided by investing in solutions like what Apple is offering with ATV. Especially if they offer free content with iAd commercials, that would be ideal way to get at some of the people who will go hunting on the web for content.
The world of digital media is changing rapidly & the way to make money from it is changing. These TV execs are fools if they can't understand that their business models have to change & grow to adapt to new technologies & trends. Sadly, if they don't get it now they probably never will. They'll just continue to be bitter that their sales models are failing & they'll blame everyone except themselves for the failures of their business.
Comments
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!
I can buy any DVD, or an entire series, pop in the DVD, fire up handbrake, and tell it to give me an iPhone compatible format, which I just drop into iTunes. I can take it anywhere, on my iPhone, my MediaPC, or my Desktop. It takes no skill to encode a DVD these days. There are numerous 1-Click turn key solutions that are free.
The executives are clinging to a price point that is no longer sustainable. I can stream this stuff from Netflix on my phone, desktop, or media PC as well, plus I get an unlimited number of times to stream or order a DVD for 8 dollars a month, for any show out of the thousands that they offer. If I were to get charged $2.00 per episode I streamed or for every DVD I ordered, it would cost a small fortune.
It's overpriced in todays environment.
With his line of thinking, movies on DVD's, Pay per view, streaming, or cable tv are taking money from movie theaters by selling or renting at a much lower price.
I don't go to movie theaters anymore. I wait for the movie to come out on DVD and rent it via Netflix for $9 a month.
So if it costs me $40 to take my wife and two kids to a theater, and I'm paying less than $1 per movie a month instead...
How do movie studios not go out of business?
Why are studios allowing this obvious hit to their revenues?
Time Warner and the rest of these greedy morons need to get on board before they're left on the side of the road.
Particularly in the UK we already have a lot of on demand services. The big channels do it through the internet, BBC do it through almost everything (internet, set top box, Nintendo Wii, iPhone, cable box's) and next year there are meant to be set top box's offering on demand tv from all the big channels as well again for free. The cable companies are also offering on demand programs already, broadband companies like BT offer on demand set top box's (but unlike apple the box is free and you can also subscribe to channels like sports which you kinda want live making it more of a complete package).
So Apple offering the most expensive box, that you then have to pay per program (how do you flick onto a program to see what it's like if you have to pay for it), and also less content than everyone else isn't particularly exciting, as it's going to cost a decent amount and you still need the tv package you have at the moment. They may say it's a hobby which was fine when it was all about stuff you own, now it's about on demand content which is a big market but there products by far the worst except for being the nicest looking box.
I can understand some studios dont want prime time shows available 1 day after airing, they could add more delay then, maybe a week. Apple could ease off on the delay for some studios.
If the 99 cents shows fail, Apple will need to open up the AppleTV app store so we can get them through other sites (like directly from the studios website, with ads). If studios dont want to make apps, then Apple could enable safari with Flash on the AppleTV and we could go get them anyway.
Apple is making most of its profit selling hardware anyway. Imo a 99 $ AppleTV with games and apps would be the best selling set-top box in the world.
Nothing is FREE .. I pay more for EVERYTHING EVERYDAY that is advertised on your TV shows so that you can pay millions of dollars to actors and have long lunches at your favorite trendy restaurant.
I pay about $70 every month to have "FREE" TV piped into my home.. Free is a s ridiculous statement. "Free" TV requires I watch your shows when you schedule them first. "Free" TV requires I sit through most commercials.
Bewkes and other network rocket scientists get the picture, they just don't want to admit their model no longer works well, and unwilling to change.
I can buy any DVD, or an entire series, pop in the DVD, fire up handbrake, and tell it to give me an iPhone compatible format, which I just drop into iTunes. I can take it anywhere, on my iPhone, my MediaPC, or my Desktop. It takes no skill to encode a DVD these days. There are numerous 1-Click turn key solutions that are free.
The executives are clinging to a price point that is no longer sustainable. I can stream this stuff from Netflix on my phone, desktop, or media PC as well, plus I get an unlimited number of times to stream or order a DVD for 8 dollars a month, for any show out of the thousands that they offer. If I were to get charged $2.00 per episode I streamed or for every DVD I ordered, it would cost a small fortune.
It's overpriced in todays environment.
That is irrelevant to the average user who doesn?t want to learn to do that or go through the effort.
That is irrelevant to the services it offers over streaming sites with no local storage and offline viewing like iTunes Store.
That irrelevant for a fast and convenient download, which can often be done at a coffee shop or airport or hotel before you go on a trip. (this I?ve done from iTS and from torrents)
I honestly can?t understand how people can be saying that because it isn?t ideal for them that it can?t possibly be ideal for anyone else. It clearly offers options that the other services don?t.
I agree that Handbrake is not for the "average" user, personally I really think Apple must get on the ball and support DVD/BD imports from Discs, just like the music CD's I import. It's been way too long since video was introduced into iTunes. Granted it's not all Apple's issue here, it's the Media Giants that control what content is available for iTunes, but come-on SJ...Get with the plan! I am not going to handbrake, and I'm not going to re-purchase my existing physical content. It's bad enough BD came out and now I have to re-purchase some of that.
Personally, I think it's silly to think the "average" user uses Torrents too.
That is irrelevant to the average user who doesn’t want to learn to do that or go through the effort.
That is irrelevant to the services it offers over streaming sites with no local storage and offline viewing like iTunes Store.
That irrelevant for a fast and convenient download, which can often be done at a coffee shop or airport or hotel before you go on a trip. (this I’ve done from iTS and from torrents)
I honestly can’t understand how people can be saying that because it isn’t ideal for them that it can’t possibly be ideal for anyone else. It clearly offers options that the other services don’t.
That is irrelevant to the average user who doesn?t want to learn to do that or go through the effort.
That is irrelevant to the services it offers over streaming sites with no local storage and offline viewing like iTunes Store.
That irrelevant for a fast and convenient download, which can often be done at a coffee shop or airport or hotel before you go on a trip. (this I?ve done from iTS and from torrents)
I honestly can?t understand how people can be saying that because it isn?t ideal for them that it can?t possibly be ideal for anyone else. It clearly offers options that the other services don?t.
I just bought Fringe season 3 pass on iTunes for 49.99. I have no cable (insane monthly fee), don't have TV anymore. I like to watch stuff on my iMac 27" or iPad. I do not have much time to watch anyway so i can buy 5-6 seasons of shows i like every year and it's still much cheaper than cable. I could buy bluray for about 50, but i need either rip it or watch it on TV both ways involves buying soe tech i don't have anymore and riping bluray will take an insane amount of time.
Oh and of course NO ADS on iTunes + i get to chose when, how and what i want to watch.
I'd like to see you try to download a podcast or (God-Forbid) a movie on an Airport/coffee/sandwich shop WiFi network. I can barely check my email on my iPhone from those crappy wifi networks without some lag. With all the users logged on that normal Airport/coffee/sandwich shop networks have. Even ATT's Wifi offered in Business districts? Please, let's get realistic here.
I?ve had good speeds most of the time at the places I mentioned. Not always, but usually fast enough. Especially at a hotel where I DL it overnight if needed.
But why are those the options? Why not from your home? Why does ripping a DVD or watching on Blu-ray (because it?s the bestest) the only viable options that should exist for all users?
I agree that Handbrake is not for the "average" user, personally I really think Apple must get on the ball and support DVD/BD imports from Discs, just like the music CD's I import. It's been way too long since video was introduced into iTunes. Granted it's not all Apple's issue here, it's the Media Giants that control what content is available for iTunes, but come-on SJ...Get with the plan! I am not going to handbrake, and I'm not going to re-purchase my existing physical content. It's bad enough BD came out and now I have to re-purchase some of that.
If the ?Media Giants? control the content and aren?t even okay with 99¢ rentals, which you think is too much anyway then what program does Steve Jobs need to get with? Apple should close up the iTunes Store video services and make it the same type of service as Hulu and Netflix with streaming only? No local storage with offline viewing? Why is this service overlooked when it?s a huge benefit over the others mentioned?
Personally, I think it's silly to think the "average" user uses Torrents too.
Um, didn?t say that the average user should torrent. I clearly mentioned what I have done to satisfy my entertainment needs for long trips without internet access.
I just bought Fringe season 3 pass on iTunes for 49.99. I have no cable (insane monthly fee), don't have TV anymore. I like to watch stuff on my iMac 27" or iPad. I do not have much time to watch anyway so i can buy 5-6 seasons of shows i like every year and it's still much cheaper than cable. I could buy bluray for about 50, but i need either rip it or watch it on TV both ways involves buying soe tech i don't have anymore and riping bluray will take an insane amount of time.
Oh and of course NO ADS on iTunes + i get to chose when, how and what i want to watch.
That is a great example for a way this could be used.
I don?t even own a TV, and I will use torrents when I can as it?s just too convenient for me not to. I?ve bought many a TV show in the past, but that is if the content isn?t available via torrents or would take too long to DL. The problem is would only watch these shows once so having an option for ½ price sounds like a deal to me for those rare occasions. As it stands now I have entire seasons of The Unit, 24, and other shows that will likely never watch again but fear I can?t delete because I bought them.
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...
John,
Regarding movies: As an adult, I agree with you. If you have seen a movie once, why bother seeing it again. But....but.....I have kids. They have certain cartoon classics on DVD that they want to watch over and over and over again. I do not want to pay rent each time to see the same movie or TV show over and over and over again. Therefore, I need to continue buying DVDs of classic movies and TV shows.
I refuse to pay $100 a month for 100+ channels on Dish or cable TV, when all I want is three or four channels. Therefore, I want to own select TV shows. I will wait until a full season of a show is available on DVD. And then I buy the entire season. So what if I have to wait until season 2 to buy season 1 of the Sopranos, Rome, or 24 on DVD.
I don't want to waste money on channels that I refuse to watch. What if I only want to subscribe to one or two channels, and nothing more. Unless cable and satellite TV companies are forced to offer subscription per channel, then nothing will change.
I’ve had good speeds most of the time at the places I mentioned. Not always, but usually fast enough. Especially at a hotel where I DL it overnight if needed.
I never said these should be the only options, I just think Apple needs to support imports of our EXISTING physical content already. It's been about 6 years since they introduced video to iTunes. And I was also saying that it's not all Apple's issue. The Media Giants want us to constantly re-purchase content. Because they are Greedy. If you could import existing content, then you could take it everywhere, instead of having to re-purchase or "rent" a movie on-the-go or traveling when you already own on DVD/BD but can't rip it to iTunes.
But why are those the options? Why not from your home? Why does ripping a DVD or watching on Blu-ray (because it’s the bestest) the only viable options that should exist for all users?
I think iTunes should offer rental subscriptions like Amazon or Netflix or now Hulu. that's the program i'm talking about. For the amount of Netflix i watch in a month, I'd have to spend at least $50 - $75 per month on iTunes rentals, that I only pay $18 on Netflix. We get 3-5 discs a week on average, and they are mostly TV series (i.e. True Blood, Star Trek series, etc. sprinkled in with about 3-5 movies we rent per month). Granted when the new seasons of TV are airing we slow down.
If the “Media Giants” control the content and aren’t even okay with 99¢ rentals, which you think is too much anyway then what program does Steve Jobs need to get with? Apple should close up the iTunes Store video services and make it the same type of service as Hulu and Netflix with streaming only? No local storage with offline viewing? Why is this service overlooked when it’s a huge benefit over the others mentioned?
And I did say you said that either. I said it's silly to think that average user actually knows about or regularly uses torrents.
Um, didn’t say that the average user should torrent. I clearly mentioned what I have done to satisfy my entertainment needs for long trips without internet access.
Lucky you!
It’s not luck when you plan well.
I never said these should be the only options, I just think Apple needs to support imports of our EXISTING physical content already. It's been about 6 years since they introduced video to iTunes. And I was also saying that it's not all Apple's issue. The Media Giants want us to constantly re-purchase content. Because they are Greedy. If you could import existing content, then you could take it everywhere, instead of having to re-purchase or "rent" a movie on-the-go or traveling when you already own on DVD/BD but can't rip it to iTunes.
You think Apple needs to support the imports of DVD VOB files in iTunes? Good luck with that.
I think iTunes should offer rental subscriptions like Amazon or Netflix or now Hulu. that's the program i'm talking about. For the amount of Netflix i watch in a month, I'd have to spend at least $50 - $75 per month on iTunes rentals, that I only pay $18. We get 3-5 discs a week on average, and they are mostly TV series (i.e. True Blood, Star Trek series, etc. sprinkled in with about 3-5 movies we rent per month). Granted when the new seasons of TV are airing we slow down.
Why do you think Apple hasn’t tried this? Why do you think that copying what the others are doing is a good business model? If there are several others doing it then why not just use their services? You aren’t looking out for Apple’s best interest so why care if there is a service out there that doesn’t fit your needs? I don’t use Netflix because I hate streaming a TV show series just to have some oddball episode not included, but I don’t think Netflix is shit for everybody because of that.
And I did say you said that either. I said it's silly to think that average user actually knows about or regularly uses torrents.
Considering what it was in reply to how could anyone not make that association.
The bottom line is iTS has options the other services don’t and has been very successful with video so far. Trying to force it to be like the other services is silly. It’s akin to those that said the iPad will fail because all previous tablets have failed but then also said it will fail because it’s not doing exactly the same thing as the previous tablets. It makes no sense. The issue with the TV rental service is with the networks and their fear of losing their very real and large lump sum payments from networks and advertisers. There is no one-to-one payoff for the content owners. There is a very real risk of one or more going under this inevitable paradigm shift. It’s going to be messy and there is will be a lot of collateral damage affecting everyone, including the consumer as TV show budgets are likely to be crunched when this comes to a head.
That being said though, I think what a lot of people don't realize is, if TV went 100% a-la-carte, then once you've watched everything once, how do you find out about new shows? With no commercials, how you find out about new content. For my household, 99% of the new content we find out about is either: 1. Commercials or 2. friends/colleagues. That's how I heard about LOST, a commercial. We hardly ever search for new content via internet. Granted every once in a while i stumble on something. But that's about it. If it went the iTunes model, you'd start hearing crickets coming out of your ATV after a while IMO.
Additionally, without Ads and cable/satv/dish companies, we would have no TV to watch. They play a huge part in the broadcasting of new shows. And I think that's what all the Media Giants are afraid will happen. If that happens where to commercials/previews fit in? We all hate those forced video ads that pop-up and we instantly close them if that option is available, but i digress...
Plus Mr. Pig, I find it surprising that you can't watch a movie more than once? You must have a very short attention span. Granted I don't have a huge library, and I thin it out every once in a while, but I do keep at least 50 of my favorites in the collection at all times. With Netflix, I find myself buying less and less movies, because for the price we pay, I can stand to rent movies a couple times.
John,
Regarding movies: As an adult, I agree with you. If you have seen a movie once, why bother seeing it again. But....but.....I have kids. They have certain cartoon classics on DVD that they want to watch over and over and over again. I do not want to pay rent each time to see the same movie or TV show over and over and over again. Therefore, I need to continue buying DVDs of classic movies and TV shows.
I refuse to pay $100 a month for 100+ channels on Dish or cable TV, when all I want is three or four channels. Therefore, I want to own select TV shows. I will wait until a full season of a show is available on DVD. And then I buy the entire season. So what if I have to wait until season 2 to buy season 1 of the Sopranos, Rome, or 24 on DVD.
I don't want to waste money on channels that I refuse to watch. What if I only want to subscribe to one or two channels, and nothing more. Unless cable and satellite TV companies are forced to offer subscription per channel, then nothing will change.
You must have good WiFi karma dude, or just travel a lot.
It’s not luck when you plan well.
No, I never said support VOB. I want support akin to music CD imports into iTunes.
You think Apple needs to support the imports of DVD VOB files in iTunes? Good luck with that.
When did Apple offer subscription services? Never.
Why do you think Apple hasn’t tried this? Why do you think that copying what the others are doing is a good business model? If there are several others doing it then why not just use their services? You aren’t looking out for Apple’s best interest so why care if there is a service out there that doesn’t fit your needs? I don’t use Netflix because I hate streaming a TV show series just to have some oddball episode not included, but I don’t think Netflix is shit for everybody because of that.
now you're lumping me into the "Apple products will all fail crowd", please....
You should read my other comments about media giants, we see eye-to-eye there, friend.
Considering what it was in reply to how could anyone not make that association.
The bottom line is iTS has options the other services don’t and has been very successful with video so far. Trying to force it to be like the other services is silly. It’s akin to those that said the iPad will fail because all previous tablets have failed but then also said it will fail because it’s not doing exactly the same thing as the previous tablets. It makes no sense. The issue with the TV rental service is with the networks and their fear of losing their very real and large lump sum payments from networks and advertisers. There is no one-to-one payoff for the content owners. There is a very real risk of one or more going under this inevitable paradigm shift. It’s going to be messy and there is will be a lot of collateral damage affecting everyone, including the consumer as TV show budgets are likely to be crunched when this comes to a head.
That is irrelevant to the average user who doesn?t want to learn to do that or go through the effort.
That is irrelevant to the services it offers over streaming sites with no local storage and offline viewing like iTunes Store.
That irrelevant for a fast and convenient download, which can often be done at a coffee shop or airport or hotel before you go on a trip. (this I?ve done from iTS and from torrents)
I honestly can?t understand how people can be saying that because it isn?t ideal for them that it can?t possibly be ideal for anyone else. It clearly offers options that the other services don?t.
Irrelevant to you perhaps. Handbrake is not 'hard' for anyone who knows how to click a button. You open it, You click Source, you select your DVD, you click the Apple TV in the profile list on the right, and then click Start. Takes all of 20 seconds.
You do realize that Apple TV has no local storage anymore meaning streaming is the only option? That essentially makes iTunes a non-competitor on Apple TV if someone has a Netflix account.
Fast and Convenient Download, if you happen to be at home. Public Wifi leaves something to be desired, and 3G isn't much better than public WiFi for downloading hundreds of MB of video.
<Sarcasm>I honestly can?t understand how Solipsism can be saying that because it it's ideal for him, that it must be ideal for anyone else....</Sarcasm>
<Sarcasm>I honestly can’t understand how Solipsism can be saying that because it it's ideal for him, that it must be ideal for anyone else....</Sarcasm>
$1.99 is too high. I can get South Park and other shows online for Free, even those Short Pixar Films that Apple sells online are available for free in HD on YouTube!
The best solution might be to run short ads like SouthParkStudios does, I don't find them annoying, I see ads as a break to run to the kitchen and reload.
So this guy, by complaining that the $1.99 price point is too high and claiming that he can get shows online for free from YouTube, just proves that these the TV execs. are just as big idiots.
The TV execs. complain that .99¢ devalues their programs but they still allow YouTube, Hulu, etc. to stream away their programming for nothing.
Makes no sense to me.
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.
Or will never buy cable. It's like the argument that it will eat into DVD/Blu-Ray sales, the people buying an AppleTV probably don't ever buy DVDs of TV shows, they are additional sales over current numbers.
The reason DVD & Blu-Ray sales are hurting has more to do with the increase in pirated content, and much of the casual pirating might actually be avoided by investing in solutions like what Apple is offering with ATV. Especially if they offer free content with iAd commercials, that would be ideal way to get at some of the people who will go hunting on the web for content.
The world of digital media is changing rapidly & the way to make money from it is changing. These TV execs are fools if they can't understand that their business models have to change & grow to adapt to new technologies & trends. Sadly, if they don't get it now they probably never will. They'll just continue to be bitter that their sales models are failing & they'll blame everyone except themselves for the failures of their business.