Federal rules ensure Apple's iTunes has right to Comcast's NBC content

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 47
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by uberben View Post


    I think in order to find the true value of iTunes content you'd need to do something like this.



    $0.99 x number of shows you watch in a week.

    minus how much you'd be willing to pay for no advertising.

    minus what you believe been able to watch it on any of your devices is worth.

    minus what you believe been able to watch it at a time of your choosing, without adverts is worth.



    compare to cable cost per month.



    If you want to be picky, try this.



    When you buy an episode of a TV show on iTunes you are directly telling the shows producers and whoever else runs it that you paid for it. That's just not money, it's a vote which TV doesn't give you (I don't think). Might be worth something to some people.



    That's a pretty ridiculous comparison. By your logic, my cell phone costs me thousands of dollars per month because it's $0.10 per minute -and if I used it every minute of every day, the cost would be stratospheric.



    In reality, each person would have to calculate it for themselves. Let me show you how a RATIONAL person would do it:



    I watch about 2 hours of TV per week. At $0.99 per half hour, that's $3.96 per week or about $17 per month. That's less than half of what my cable company charges me.



    Obviously, people who watch TV a lot are going to have to pay more. But your blanket statement that it's too expensive is too absurd for words.
  • Reply 22 of 47
    irelandireland Posts: 17,569member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tjwal View Post


    If you were able to read past the first sentence of my comment you would have seen that I qualified it. My conclusion is still valid.



    If nobody watches 24/7 then why even say that in your comment? It seems you should try to be less devious when trying to make a point.
  • Reply 23 of 47
    irelandireland Posts: 17,569member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers View Post


    yes...



    In my country we get ads and still have to pay $37 per month.
  • Reply 24 of 47
    tjwaltjwal Posts: 404member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    That's a pretty ridiculous comparison. By your logic, my cell phone costs me thousands of dollars per month because it's $0.10 per minute -and if I used it every minute of every day, the cost would be stratospheric.



    In reality, each person would have to calculate it for themselves. Let me show you how a RATIONAL person would do it:



    I watch about 2 hours of TV per week. At $0.99 per half hour, that's $3.96 per week or about $17 per month. That's less than half of what my cable company charges me.



    Obviously, people who watch TV a lot are going to have to pay more. But your blanket statement that it's too expensive is too absurd for words.



    So you watch 2 hrs of TV per week, I don't think you fit the demographic profile that TV programming is made for. In fact if everyone only watched 2 hrs per week I don't think there would be any programming produced at all.



    I have a family of 4 and a rough estimate is more than 100 hrs per month. I believe that is less than the average viewer who according to Nielson watches 4 hrs/day.
  • Reply 25 of 47
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tjwal View Post


    So you watch 2 hrs of TV per week, I don't think you fit the demographic profile that TV programming is made for. In fact if everyone only watched 2 hrs per week I don't think there would be any programming produced at all.



    I have a family of 4 and a rough estimate is more than 100 hrs per month. I believe that is less than the average viewer who according to Nielson watches 4 hrs/day.



    If your family is watching 100 hours of TV per month, I'd suggest that you get a life.



    The point - which you so obviously are incapable of understanding - is that no one can decide the RIGHT PRICE. Each person decides on the right price FOR THEMSELVES. The way the market works is that if too many people think a product is too expensive, they don't buy it and either the vendor lowers the price or goes out of business.



    For me, $0.99 per episode would be a good deal. For you, a fixed price 'all you can eat' deal makes more sense. Neither one of us has the right to dictate what the 'right price' for the product is for anyone but ourselves.
  • Reply 26 of 47
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    That's a pretty ridiculous comparison. By your logic, my cell phone costs me thousands of dollars per month because it's $0.10 per minute -and if I used it every minute of every day, the cost would be stratospheric.



    In reality, each person would have to calculate it for themselves. Let me show you how a RATIONAL person would do it:



    I watch about 2 hours of TV per week. At $0.99 per half hour, that's $3.96 per week or about $17 per month. That's less than half of what my cable company charges me.



    Obviously, people who watch TV a lot are going to have to pay more. But your blanket statement that it's too expensive is too absurd for words.



    I have read and reread my original post and can find no connection, no matter how abstract with cost per minute, or mobiles or anything outside of comparing how much value someone gets out of their cable service and whether they would be better off with an iTunes service.



    I think what I said makes it clear that each person would make their own evaluation of cost/benefit by the fact that it is a calculation based upon how someone might use and think of their subscription.



    And again, my blanket statement that it is too costly to be worthwhile? I'm half believing you quoted my post by mistake and are replying to something else entirely because again, that isn't mentioned anywhere at all. If it's worth anything, I watch extremely little TV and it would be worth it to me personally.
  • Reply 27 of 47
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    If your family is watching 100 hours of TV per month, I'd suggest that you get a life.



    The point - which you so obviously are incapable of understanding - is that no one can decide the RIGHT PRICE. Each person decides on the right price FOR THEMSELVES. The way the market works is that if too many people think a product is too expensive, they don't buy it and either the vendor lowers the price or goes out of business.



    For me, $0.99 per episode would be a good deal. For you, a fixed price 'all you can eat' deal makes more sense. Neither one of us has the right to dictate what the 'right price' for the product is for anyone but ourselves.



    I feel the need to call this it sounds really harsh suggesting that if a family of 4 each watches (on average) one and half hours worth of TV a day then they need to get a life.
  • Reply 28 of 47
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    In my country we get ads and still have to pay $37 per month.



    It is unfortunate that you have no over-the-air option out there in iPad Land.
  • Reply 29 of 47
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    Free? So you pay no monthly fee for TV then?



    As a matter of fact, over-the-air terrestrial broadcast television is available to consumers in North America at no cost. (Aside from the price to purchase the TV set in the first place, plus the price to purchase the electricity you use to run it -- but presumably those aren't part of the fees you're thinking about.) Consumers can choose to subscribe to cable, satellite, or other such premium television services for a monthly fee, but it isn't mandatory to receive basic local stations.



    I understand that in the UK, consumers are required to pay a fee for the right to even own a television set, even if it is only used to receive the local over-the-air terrestrial stations. I've heard stories about government inspectors keeping lists of households that do not hold TV permits, and performing spot checks to make sure those households don't have television sets on the premises. If the inspectors ever find such a household with a television set but no permit, the homeowner has to prove that the television set is non-functional, or else they'll issue a fine.
  • Reply 30 of 47
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post


    As a matter of fact, over-the-air terrestrial broadcast television is available to consumers in North America at no cost. (Aside from the price to purchase the TV set in the first place, plus the price to purchase the electricity you use to run it -- but presumably those aren't part of the fees you're thinking about.) Consumers can choose to subscribe to cable, satellite, or other such premium television services for a monthly fee, but it isn't mandatory to receive basic local stations.



    I understand that in the UK, consumers are required to pay a fee for the right to even own a television set, even if they are only used to receive the local over-the-air terrestrial stations. I've heard stories about government inspectors keeping lists of households that do not hold TV permits, and performing spot checks to make sure those households don't have television sets on the premises. If the inspectors ever find such a household with a television set but no permit, the homeowner has to prove that the television set is non-functional, or else they'll issue a fine.



    This is fairly close to the truth. They charge you if you can watch the BBC, since the BBC is broadcast over the TV wires the same as free channels if you can watch those free channels you can watch the BBC, and therefore have to pay. They are also broadcast by Sky and Virgin, so if you have either satellite or cable TV you have to pay for the BBC, nice little deal they have there. Chances of getting caught aren't huge (this doesn't make it okay) and if you are caught you have the chance to start paying the £11 a month instead of the fine (which doesn't make it okay either).



    They can't just request to come into your house if your a none payer, they have to have proof which means driving past in a van with equipment that can detect what is been watched, which is costly so they don't do it a lot (this doesn't make it okay either).



    I don't know whether it's because it's always been there or because the vast majority of people like the BBC (including the radio) but the BBC is generally well liked, not that am suggesting that makes a draconian system okay either.
  • Reply 31 of 47
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers View Post


    why not free with ads???



    This is an interesting idea. I think it would be technologically easy for Apple to add ads to AppleTV content.



    However, I don't see much value added in this proposition, except for free content on-demand.



    Big question is: will this sell enough AppleTV's to be worth the effort of negotiating contracts with the content providers. My guess is probably not.
  • Reply 32 of 47
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,511member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


    Great, now the merger can go ahead because NBC pinky-swore that they'd play nice.



    Now all NBC has to do is allow apple to rent episodes for $17 each and the feds are happy. Perfect.



    To take your point to the extreme, what if they charged $1000 per episode? Would the Feds be happy? Obviously, the Feds would see that as a ridiculous attempt to stifle the competition, and they would veto it forthwith. Now bring it to $500 per episode. Same result. Clearly, the Feds will be asking the question of whether the pricing is going to stifle competition. Will they let something like $17 pass muster? Doubt it. At some point, the Feds would have to keep hands off and let the free market decide. But I suspect that that would be at a point where your cynicism would lose its power... which is probably why you picked $17 as opposed to something defensible.



    Thompson
  • Reply 33 of 47
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,511member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by am8449 View Post


    This is an interesting idea. I think it would be technologically easy for Apple to add ads to AppleTV content.



    However, I don't see much value added in this proposition, except for free content on-demand.



    Big question is: will this sell enough AppleTV's to be worth the effort of negotiating contracts with the content providers. My guess is probably not.



    I guarantee that this is not a new idea in the realm of the iTunes negotiations. My hunch is that Apple has been staunchly fighting this behind the scenes from the get-go. And we all know how stubborn Apple can be with regard to their view of the user experience.



    In other words, I suspect that Hell will freeze over before you see commercials on iTunes content. To clarify: I know that mobile apps can be purchased via iTunes and that they can carry interactive "advertisements". But I'm not talking about *that*. I'm talking about basic video *commercials* embedded into the video stream, which the customer cannot choose to bypass. Apple isn't down with that.



    Thompson
  • Reply 34 of 47
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,511member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by uberben View Post


    I feel the need to call this it sounds really harsh suggesting that if a family of 4 each watches (on average) one and half hours worth of TV a day then they need to get a life.



    Well the previous poster's first sentence may have been a little harsh, but it could have been stricken from his post without harming his true point: the value of the pricing is a matter of opinion and in the eye of the beholder. (In fact, his first sentence was COUNTER to his point, so it probably should be stricken!)



    Thompson
  • Reply 35 of 47
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,511member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    If your family is watching 100 hours of TV per month, I'd suggest that you get a life.



    The point - which you so obviously are incapable of understanding - is that no one can decide the RIGHT PRICE. Each person decides on the right price FOR THEMSELVES. The way the market works is that if too many people think a product is too expensive, they don't buy it and either the vendor lowers the price or goes out of business.



    For me, $0.99 per episode would be a good deal. For you, a fixed price 'all you can eat' deal makes more sense. Neither one of us has the right to dictate what the 'right price' for the product is for anyone but ourselves.



    Your point, that the value at a given price is subjective, would have been made and perceived much more strongly if you would have left the first sentence out. Note that at least one responder missed your point entirely because they were offended by that sentence. It is contrary to your point.
  • Reply 36 of 47
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thompr View Post


    Well the previous poster's first sentence may have been a little harsh, but it could have been stricken from his post without harming his true point: the value of the pricing is a matter of opinion and in the eye of the beholder. (In fact, his first sentence was COUNTER to his point, so it probably should be stricken!)



    Thompson



    It was a little harsh and I only pointed it out, not because he just said that but because he had also responded to an earlier post of mine with, I can only call it puzzling ferocity. Maybe that made me post when otherwise I would have just considered it background noise.
  • Reply 37 of 47
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by uberben View Post


    I feel the need to call this it sounds really harsh suggesting that if a family of 4 each watches (on average) one and half hours worth of TV a day then they need to get a life.



    You need to go back and check your math (too much TV watching on your part, probably). 100 hours a month is over 3 hours per day.



    If you have school kids, they probably get home about 4 pm and go to bed no later than 10 pm. That means that 50% of their time at home is spent watching TV. When you figure that they also have to take baths, do homework, eat, etc, then it's even more than 50% of their 'free' time - at least on weekdays.



    Now, that's clearly tempered by the fact that they probably watch more on weekends and less during the week. And by the fact that not everyone is likely to be watching all 100 hours. But, still, 100 hours per month is a lot.
  • Reply 38 of 47
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    You need to go back and check your math (too much TV watching on your part, probably). 100 hours a month is over 3 hours per day.



    If you have school kids, they probably get home about 4 pm and go to bed no later than 10 pm. That means that 50% of their time at home is spent watching TV. When you figure that they also have to take baths, do homework, eat, etc, then it's even more than 50% of their 'free' time - at least on weekdays.



    Now, that's clearly tempered by the fact that they probably watch more on weekends and less during the week. And by the fact that not everyone is likely to be watching all 100 hours. But, still, 100 hours per month is a lot.



    4 people times 1.5 hours = 6 hours a day.



    6 times 7 days in a week = 42 hours a week.



    42 times 4 (low estimate) weeks in a month = 168.



    Yes, the family are likely to watch more on weekends then other days it's an average as I said. But what I said was right, 4 people watching 1.5 hours of tv a day is well over 168. If each person just watched one hour of TV a day then that is 112 hours a month. Yes programmes they watch will overlap and so forth but the point is 1 hour a day for someone watching TV is no reason to tell them to get a life.



    I edited out my response to your latest personal insult.
  • Reply 39 of 47
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by uberben View Post


    4 people times 1.5 hours = 6 hours a day.



    6 times 7 days in a week = 42 hours a week.



    42 times 4 (low estimate) weeks in a month = 168.



    Yes, the family are likely to watch more on weekends then other days it's an average as I said. But what I said was right, 4 people watching 1.5 hours of tv a day is well over 168. If each person just watched one hour of TV a day then that is 112 hours a month. Yes programmes they watch will overlap and so forth but the point is 1 hour a day for someone watching TV is no reason to tell them to get a life.



    I edited out my response to your latest personal insult.



    How many households have 4 different people watching different TV shows all month? You never have two people watching the same show?



    And if that IS the case, then you REALLY need to get a life - since watching TV by yourself is apparently more important to you than doing things with your family.
  • Reply 40 of 47
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    How many households have 4 different people watching different TV shows all month? You never have two people watching the same show?



    And if that IS the case, then you REALLY need to get a life - since watching TV by yourself is apparently more important to you than doing things with your family.



    68% more time then you last said leaves you no wiggle room for imaging how things might be some people, and it's still worth insulting actual people, after getting it all wrong and not just owning up to it?



    I think your doing this with no other intention then to insult people and wind people up. I'm finished here, and am with a much clearer picture of just who it is that spends their time 'unwisely'.
Sign In or Register to comment.