I don't KNOW it. But two months have gone by, and we've heard nothing. Having been involved in the industry, I know that these deals can happen overnight, if the two parties are eager to do a deal. As the prices are fixed, as we both seem to know, what's the problem? HBO wasn't shy about revealing their eagerness. We haven't heard anything from Apple in return. Not even a "we would be very happy to have content from HBO on iTunes".
Well, don't assume it is Apple.
Apple had been working with NBC for almost a year.
No doubt deals can be done quickly, but they may also take a long time as well.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
This is a very common complaint. It's not just from a few malcontents.
Perhaps true. But, it won't be an issue unless it affects sales.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
You haven't responded to my question of how you would resolve the skit vs. the whole show pricing problem.
Are you saying that the entire show containing the skit should be priced the same as the skit alone?
And that you think movies will be priced the same as well?
Then how would you resolve the question of songs being priced less than albums?
The skit vs. entire show is probably the most analogous to the song/album thing. I'm sure NBC and Apple will figure something out. Perhap price the entire show more. I don't know.
What I do believe (and stand by) is that two different entertainment products are simply not always direct substitutes for one another.
The skit vs. entire show is probably the most analogous to the song/album thing. I'm sure NBC and Apple will figure something out. Perhap price the entire show more. I don't know.
What I do believe (and stand by) is that two different entertainment products are simply not always direct substitutes for one another. [/B]
Chris, what do you mean by two different entertainment products, and why do you think that two different products should be priced similarly?
Chris, what do you mean by two different entertainment products, and why do you think that two different products should be priced similarly?
What I am saying is that two products...say one is 3 minutes long and one 43 minutes long may bear the same value to the end customers (let's say that value, expressed in dollars is $1.99) and that they may not be direct substitutes for one another. I may value 3 minutes of Jerry Seinfeld at $1.99 but be unwilling to pay anything for 43 minutes of The Simpsons.
This is what I mean. Perhaps I am not explaining well.
What I am saying is that two products...say one is 3 minutes long and one 43 minutes long may bear the same value to the end customers (let's say that value, expressed in dollars is $1.99) and that they may not be direct substitutes for one another. I may value 3 minutes of Jerry Seinfeld at $1.99 but be unwilling to pay anything for 43 minutes of The Simpsons.
This is what I mean. Perhaps I am not explaining well.
I'm pretty sure I understand what you're saying. You're being clear.
The part about not thinking something is of value to you is understandable. I don't value the Simpsons either. I wouldn't pay anything for it, therefore.
But, I would value two tv shows that I like equally, as being of equal value.
I wouldn't evaluate something that takes up a snippet of my time as being of as much value to me as something that takes up a great deal more of my schedule?a 3 minute clip as having the same value because the amount of my time viewing it is of less value to me that the time spent watching a full show.
For example, you might be willing to go out and spend $8-10 to see a movie, but you wouldn't spend that same amount of money to see a 15 minute short.
I agree that there will always be rare exceptions to that rule. But those exceptions would have to be extraordinary.
I'm pretty sure I understand what you're saying. You're being clear.
Good. Whew.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I wouldn't evaluate something that takes up a snippet of my time as being of as much value to me as something that takes up a great deal more of my schedule?a 3 minute clip as having the same value because the amount of my time viewing it is of less value to me that the time spent watching a full show.
And this is a slightly different scenario than any "random" 3-minute bit vs. any other "random" 43-minute program. If they did sell both I'd expect that either a) the longer would sell for more (contains more content of value), or b) they sell for the same price and the shorter of the two would not sell any copies.
And this is a slightly different scenario than any "random" 3-minute bit vs. any other "random" 43-minute program. If they did sell both I'd expect that either a) the longer would sell for more (contains more content of value), or b) they sell for the same price and the shorter of the two would not sell any copies. [/B]
Yeah, so I agree with you on this. Where I might not agree though would be the general case of comparing two different programs based on their length.
Though you are correct that I might view 2 hours of movie entertainment to be worth more than 15 minutes...that is also high subjective. It may depend on teh what is in the 15 minutes (or 2 hours)...as previously illustrated.
My main contention was (and still is) with any notion that length (amount of time) is necessarily the overriding value choice by customers.
I think this is a complicated issue (which I'm glad I am not responsible for figuring out). The only thing I need to do is decide if the program (whatever it is or however long it is) is worth what they are asking for it (to me).
Yeah, so I agree with you on this. Where I might not agree though would be the general case of comparing two different programs based on their length.
Though you are correct that I might view 2 hours of movie entertainment to be worth more than 15 minutes...that is also high subjective. It may depend on teh what is in the 15 minutes (or 2 hours)...as previously illustrated.
My main contention was (and still is) with any notion that length (amount of time) is necessarily the overriding value choice by customers.
I think this is a complicated issue (which I'm glad I am not responsible for figuring out). The only thing I need to do is decide if the program (whatever it is or however long it is) is worth what they are asking for it (to me).
Sure, the only way you can make a decision, is to decide what is important to you.
Theres an awful lot of companies right now who are trying to do everything - google, amazon, microsoft being the examples I can think of off the top of my head. Why can't they just stay out of eachothers markets?
Because entering other markets works so well! Just look at McDonald's Pizza!
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
I don't KNOW it. But two months have gone by, and we've heard nothing. Having been involved in the industry, I know that these deals can happen overnight, if the two parties are eager to do a deal. As the prices are fixed, as we both seem to know, what's the problem? HBO wasn't shy about revealing their eagerness. We haven't heard anything from Apple in return. Not even a "we would be very happy to have content from HBO on iTunes".
Well, don't assume it is Apple.
Apple had been working with NBC for almost a year.
No doubt deals can be done quickly, but they may also take a long time as well.
Originally posted by melgross
This is a very common complaint. It's not just from a few malcontents.
Perhaps true. But, it won't be an issue unless it affects sales.
Originally posted by melgross
You haven't responded to my question of how you would resolve the skit vs. the whole show pricing problem.
Are you saying that the entire show containing the skit should be priced the same as the skit alone?
And that you think movies will be priced the same as well?
Then how would you resolve the question of songs being priced less than albums?
The skit vs. entire show is probably the most analogous to the song/album thing. I'm sure NBC and Apple will figure something out. Perhap price the entire show more. I don't know.
What I do believe (and stand by) is that two different entertainment products are simply not always direct substitutes for one another.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The skit vs. entire show is probably the most analogous to the song/album thing. I'm sure NBC and Apple will figure something out. Perhap price the entire show more. I don't know.
What I do believe (and stand by) is that two different entertainment products are simply not always direct substitutes for one another. [/B]
Chris, what do you mean by two different entertainment products, and why do you think that two different products should be priced similarly?
Originally posted by melgross
Chris, what do you mean by two different entertainment products, and why do you think that two different products should be priced similarly?
What I am saying is that two products...say one is 3 minutes long and one 43 minutes long may bear the same value to the end customers (let's say that value, expressed in dollars is $1.99) and that they may not be direct substitutes for one another. I may value 3 minutes of Jerry Seinfeld at $1.99 but be unwilling to pay anything for 43 minutes of The Simpsons.
This is what I mean. Perhaps I am not explaining well.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
What I am saying is that two products...say one is 3 minutes long and one 43 minutes long may bear the same value to the end customers (let's say that value, expressed in dollars is $1.99) and that they may not be direct substitutes for one another. I may value 3 minutes of Jerry Seinfeld at $1.99 but be unwilling to pay anything for 43 minutes of The Simpsons.
This is what I mean. Perhaps I am not explaining well.
I'm pretty sure I understand what you're saying. You're being clear.
The part about not thinking something is of value to you is understandable. I don't value the Simpsons either. I wouldn't pay anything for it, therefore.
But, I would value two tv shows that I like equally, as being of equal value.
I wouldn't evaluate something that takes up a snippet of my time as being of as much value to me as something that takes up a great deal more of my schedule?a 3 minute clip as having the same value because the amount of my time viewing it is of less value to me that the time spent watching a full show.
For example, you might be willing to go out and spend $8-10 to see a movie, but you wouldn't spend that same amount of money to see a 15 minute short.
I agree that there will always be rare exceptions to that rule. But those exceptions would have to be extraordinary.
Originally posted by melgross
I'm pretty sure I understand what you're saying. You're being clear.
Good. Whew.
Originally posted by melgross
I wouldn't evaluate something that takes up a snippet of my time as being of as much value to me as something that takes up a great deal more of my schedule?a 3 minute clip as having the same value because the amount of my time viewing it is of less value to me that the time spent watching a full show.
And this is a slightly different scenario than any "random" 3-minute bit vs. any other "random" 43-minute program. If they did sell both I'd expect that either a) the longer would sell for more (contains more content of value), or b) they sell for the same price and the shorter of the two would not sell any copies.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And this is a slightly different scenario than any "random" 3-minute bit vs. any other "random" 43-minute program. If they did sell both I'd expect that either a) the longer would sell for more (contains more content of value), or b) they sell for the same price and the shorter of the two would not sell any copies. [/B]
Right. That's what I'm saying too.
Originally posted by melgross
Right. That's what I'm saying too.
Yeah, so I agree with you on this. Where I might not agree though would be the general case of comparing two different programs based on their length.
Though you are correct that I might view 2 hours of movie entertainment to be worth more than 15 minutes...that is also high subjective. It may depend on teh what is in the 15 minutes (or 2 hours)...as previously illustrated.
My main contention was (and still is) with any notion that length (amount of time) is necessarily the overriding value choice by customers.
I think this is a complicated issue (which I'm glad I am not responsible for figuring out). The only thing I need to do is decide if the program (whatever it is or however long it is) is worth what they are asking for it (to me).
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Yeah, so I agree with you on this. Where I might not agree though would be the general case of comparing two different programs based on their length.
Though you are correct that I might view 2 hours of movie entertainment to be worth more than 15 minutes...that is also high subjective. It may depend on teh what is in the 15 minutes (or 2 hours)...as previously illustrated.
My main contention was (and still is) with any notion that length (amount of time) is necessarily the overriding value choice by customers.
I think this is a complicated issue (which I'm glad I am not responsible for figuring out). The only thing I need to do is decide if the program (whatever it is or however long it is) is worth what they are asking for it (to me).
Sure, the only way you can make a decision, is to decide what is important to you.
Originally posted by eAi
Theres an awful lot of companies right now who are trying to do everything - google, amazon, microsoft being the examples I can think of off the top of my head. Why can't they just stay out of eachothers markets?
Because entering other markets works so well! Just look at McDonald's Pizza!