PDA

View Full Version : Apple Partnering with Inline Video Ad Company?




MacRumors
Sep 21, 2007, 09:50 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

NewTeeVee claims (http://newteevee.com/2007/09/21/podaddies-wins-funding-apple-partnership/) that Apple has partnered with a small San Francisco-based video advertising startup named Podaddies (http://podaddies.com/). The extent of the deal appears to be developing advertising support for Apple's Quicktime and iTunes groups, and does not involve a direct financial investment.

Podaddies CEO claims that its technology is currently functioning on "connected iPod and iPhone devices" and is working on adding compatibility for disconnected devices. ("Connected" may refer to internet-connected like the iPod touch and iPhone.)

Previous reports have revealed (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/01/advertisments-on-itunes/) that Apple has been exploring the possibility of in-line video advertising. In-line ads would be video advertisements that would play at the beginning, middle or end of the content itself. In previous discussion it had been suggested that this in-line advertising would presumably discount the cost of the media itself.

Ad supported media could also be add additional flexibility to Television and Movie distribution through the iTunes Store. NBC recently pulled out of the iTunes Store to launch (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/09/19/nbc-direct-to-offer-tv-shows/) their own ad-supported distribution. Meanwhile, Hulu (http://www.hulu.com/) is another major industry initiative to offer ad-supported content to consumers directly.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/09/21/apple-partnering-with-inline-video-ad-company/)



twoodcc
Sep 21, 2007, 09:52 PM
i don't know about this. most people hate ads...

kainjow
Sep 21, 2007, 09:53 PM
If Apple is going to charge for content and add advertising, no thanks.

If they are going to distribute free content (movies) with advertising, no thanks.

Netflix is my prefer method for watching movies. And I cancelled my cable tv because advertising sucks. Oh and I use SafariBlock also ;)

offwidafairies
Sep 21, 2007, 09:55 PM
I switch off when I see ads

arn
Sep 21, 2007, 09:56 PM
i don't know about this. most people hate ads...

I think most people would watch/ignore ads-sponsored content over paying for it.

Would you rather download a TV episode for free with ads or pay $1.99 for it without ads? Because that's going to be a choice in the coming months. (if not from iTunes, then from NBC or Hulu)

arn

Football1maniac
Sep 21, 2007, 10:00 PM
What's there to hate about ads when you can fast forward through them? Last time I checked, every iPod with video has that capability.:apple:

kainjow
Sep 21, 2007, 10:02 PM
What's there to hate about ads when you can fast forward through them? Last time I checked, every iPod with video has that capability.:apple:

Not if they use some special DRM technique and updated firmware to recognize when an ad is playing and disable fast forwarding.

offwidafairies
Sep 21, 2007, 10:04 PM
I think most people would watch/ignore ads-sponsored content over paying for it.

Would you rather download a TV episode for free with ads or pay $1.99 for it without ads? Because that's going to be a choice in the coming months. (if not from iTunes, then from NBC or Hulu)

arn

i think id like the choice.
some days im scrooge, other days i feel like no interruptions :)

tk421
Sep 21, 2007, 10:08 PM
This story has almost all negative votes, but macpolls (http://www.macpolls.com/) currently says differently.

nbs2
Sep 21, 2007, 10:10 PM
Considering that most TV shows, I watch once, I'd rather deal with a few seconds of ads (especially if they are concentrated at the beginning or end) rather than pay the $1.99.

My issue with the NBCDirect thing is that a) it will require a proprietary player using a DRM system that I'm not familiar with (and accompanied by what-else-I-don't-know) and b) that it is not going to be Mac compatible in the immediate future (and I don't know if PPC will ever be supported). Running the same system through iTS would be worth while.

I see it this way - I can get the free one, and if I like it that much, I'll pay to buy the ad free version. Heck, I'd do the same with artists that I'm trying out for the first time. A 30 second ad on the front end of an album that I'm testing - if I find that I get annoyed with it after a couple of listens, delete without worry. Would save me a fair bit of cash...

nagromme
Sep 21, 2007, 10:15 PM
There are time when I'm actually GLAD to have a video, website, game, etc. be free, supported by ads. (I watch LOST that way and am glad to have it.)

There are times when it's worth it to me to pay for ad-free content too. (I buy Galactica... at least until NBC bailed!)

I have no problem with both kinds of media existing. Free doesn't always mean bad.

And I see no reason to assume Apple would BOTH charge AND run ads. That sounds more like cable TV :rolleyes:

ifjake
Sep 21, 2007, 10:26 PM
"reduced pricing" better mean "free".

I'm not against ad supported video, if it's free. I really don't like streaming video though. Downloading an episode (ads or not) from iTunes is usually if not always a better experience than having to stream from some website. However, it should only be lead in or lead out ads, with no interruptions in the middle.

Small White Car
Sep 21, 2007, 10:28 PM
Things I want to keep, I'll continue paying to keep ads out of it.

But when I miss an episode of some show and I just want to see it once and will never watch it again? Sure, I'd put up with ads to get it for free in that case.

Rychy
Sep 21, 2007, 10:31 PM
I'd put up with ads if the shows were free... probably buy an Apple TV as well.

ariza910
Sep 21, 2007, 10:36 PM
This was coming - Apple stands to make a ton of money from advertising (look at Google) and recent disagreements with NBC have most likely been over revenue sharing.

Apples claim that NBC was asking $5 per episode makes a lot more sense when you think of it in this advertising model - If Apple could pull in $7 per episode from advertising and only pay NBC $.99 wholesale thats a nice profit for Apple.

I would love to see an iTunes store that has two versions of each video, a free version with commercials and a pay version for $1.99 without commercials. Oh while they are at it bundle a HD AppleTV version and an iPod/iPhone version into a single purchase.

gkarris
Sep 21, 2007, 10:37 PM
I'd like the choice. For some shows, free with ads are okay since I'd probably only watch once or will eventually get the DVDs.

$1.99 without the ads for shows I'd like to keep...

reallynotnick
Sep 21, 2007, 10:48 PM
OMG, wait think of this, free tv-shows with ads all through your Apple TV in 720p (ok, little stretch maybe). You could pretty much cancel your tv service and just watch what ever the heck you wanted.

I still think you should be able to pay like $60 a month and get unlimited, without ad TV shows from Apple TV, but hey free with ads would be ok.

Sandfleaz
Sep 21, 2007, 10:58 PM
As a stockholder I like it!

As a user I don't like it!

(I guess that means I'm on the fence)

Dybbuk
Sep 21, 2007, 11:07 PM
I think those of you hoping for shows laced with ads for free may be disappointed. But I hope you're right.

Thataboy
Sep 21, 2007, 11:11 PM
This is excellent. I, for one, think it is preposterous to purchase (for permanent ownership) video content from iTunes. It looks great on an iPod or iPhone, but such viewing is transient. I want DVD quality at LEAST for repeated viewings on an HDTV. If inline ads = free video for my iPhone, then two thumbs up!

An iTunes video version of the flash-players on networks' websites would be excellent. Of course if one wants the option to spend $2 on a crappy quality version of a TV show, I guess they should have that option too :)

Analog Kid
Sep 22, 2007, 12:15 AM
Bad news. Apple has done well in the past by creating new paradigms, not by parroting existing models.

Maybe I'm an extreme case, but I'm finding I actually enjoy TV again now that I can watch it on DVD and iTunes. If iTunes goes to commercials, then I guess I'll have more free time on my hands.

I don't understand what the iTunes ad-supported model has over existing DVRs or on-demand services. Seems to me it guts iTMS of what differentiates it in the market.

bluebomberman
Sep 22, 2007, 12:18 AM
I don't understand what this means. Why do they need to make specific investments into a tech startup to insert ads? Does this mean that your copy of iTunes is going to phone home to a server somewhere with the number of times you've watched a specific ad in a show, or maybe just capture your play count? "Working on disconnected devices?" Huh?

We've been hearing for years about how Apple's going to insert ads within media or on the iTS front page, but it hasn't happened yet. I just don't think Apple will go down that road.

Someone clue me in?

Fluffymuff
Sep 22, 2007, 12:21 AM
Would you rather download a TV episode for free with ads or pay $1.99 for it without ads?
I'd rather pay $1.99 and watch it without ads than download it for free and watch it with ads.

arn
Sep 22, 2007, 12:41 AM
We've been hearing for years about how Apple's going to insert ads within media or on the iTS front page, but it hasn't happened yet. I just don't think Apple will go down that road.

I'd rather pay $1.99 and watch it without ads than download it for free and watch it with ads.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

Now I don't know if this particular rumor is true... but it makes sense for Apple to look into it. Free ad-supported viewing is where a large push of the industry is going. It makes sense for Apple to explore the same model in a form that can also be downloaded to your iPod and iPhone.

Hulu (http://www.forbes.com/media/2007/08/29/internet-video-advertising-biz-media-cx_lh_0829hulu.html):
Hulu will provide free, advertising-supported TV content--including full-episode programming--from NBC and News Corp.'s Fox, Fuel and Speed networks, as well as from nonequity partners including the Sundance Channel and independent cable channel Oxygen. It will also sell downloads of TV shows and movies.


Hulu's content most likely won't be playable on the iPod/iPhone. But it still will be appealing to iTunes users who would rather view shows once or twice without paying.

arn

BTW
Sep 22, 2007, 12:43 AM
If Apple is going to charge for content and add advertising, no thanks.

If they are going to distribute free content (movies) with advertising, no thanks.

Netflix is my prefer method for watching movies. And I cancelled my cable tv because advertising sucks. Oh and I use SafariBlock also ;)

Yep Netflix is the best way to go. I'm getting The Office series off of Netflix. Sorry NBC!

Darkroom
Sep 22, 2007, 01:01 AM
i wonder if users would be able to fast-forward past the ads... if not, i'm sure it would be an easy hack...

scoobydoo99
Sep 22, 2007, 01:08 AM
They aren't mutually exclusive.

Free ad-supported viewing is where a large push of the industry is going. arn

umm...i think that's where the industry _has been_ for the last 50 or so years...

to the industry, there are two kinds of programming: "content" and "filler." commercials, of course, being the "content", and the series/movies/etc being "filler."

for years now, we have been moving toward personal audio/video devices and the ability to control what we listen to or watch, thus avoiding being marketed to. the price we pay usually pales in comparison to the "lost revenue" that the marketers are missing out on. they would love to get their tentacles back around us.

i can't even begin to understand the mentality that would allow someone to say, "yeah, i don't mind being subjected to marketing as long as they entertain me afterward." if you have a _choice_ why in the world would you choose ads? i mean, the dollar cost of purchasing is so low that it doesn't really matter whether you watch it once and delete it or keep it forever. avoiding mind pollution is priceless.

JPark
Sep 22, 2007, 01:11 AM
Consider this rumor with the news that the new iPods can only play video out through some kind of new-fangled chip and you have everything pointing to a distribution model. I think Apple is finally moving toward a subscription service, and if so I think it would be great if they had the option for it to be ad-subsidized. I could ditch tv altogether and just get the stuff I want to see and have the option of paying for it or watching it with commercials.

TurboSC
Sep 22, 2007, 01:59 AM
Whatever they do, I really hope they keep the ads out of the middle of the show... no more than 1 in the middle at least... i don't mind ads in the beginning...

bluebomberman
Sep 22, 2007, 02:03 AM
Now I don't know if this particular rumor is true... but it makes sense for Apple to look into it. Free ad-supported viewing is where a large push of the industry is going. It makes sense for Apple to explore the same model in a form that can also be downloaded to your iPod and iPhone.


Right, but I don't see why Apple needs the assistance of a specific startup in this endeavor - splicing ads into a Quicktime file isn't exactly a technical challenge that I would expect to daunt Apple (makers of Final Cut Studio and Quicktime).

The only reason I can think of for this investment is that Apple wants to develop technology to somehow gauge the effectiveness of any ads embedded within the file - something that goes beyond the number of downloads of a given episode. Like tracking number of plays, or whether the ads generated clicks to advertisers' sites. Which brings up the potential for phoning home, something that raises serious privacy concerns that Apple has largely avoided getting entangled with.

jdheflin
Sep 22, 2007, 02:42 AM
I love iTunes and the Apple store but incorporating ads into the music I purchase is a deal breaker for me. I would pay more than double for music WITHOUT ads and if there was no choice, I would start buying my music in CD format AGAIN.

ts1973
Sep 22, 2007, 02:49 AM
NOOOOOOOooooooooooooo....

What happened to the company that wanted to think different ? Why do they want to force adds on us, and by this just follow what others are already doing ? We can all go back and watch television again if this is where things are going to.

While I agree with Arn that add-contented movies/shows can exist next to non add-contented ones, the move towards adds is in my opinion clear : we start by offering the two side by side, and after a while the add-less shows get discontinued ('cause after all, an "overwhelming" number of our customers wanted only the add-based shows :rolleyes:)

One last thing : Apple might get away with this in the states, but my guess is Europe will not be so enthusiastic about this. There are enough add-less TV stations available here (or stations with limited adds, not interrupting shows everey 10 minutes), imho giving add infested content for download no chance at all. Maybe that's why we still don't have an iTunes Movie store over here ? FYI, many people here feel an iPod Video (in whatever form) is an utter waste of money : there's hardly any content out at all (save for a couple of video podcasts), so why buy one ?

Phil A.
Sep 22, 2007, 03:20 AM
I'd muchrather pay for the content and have no adverts. In fact I would always choose a higher price without ads than a lower one (or even free) with them.

nagromme
Sep 22, 2007, 04:01 AM
I love iTunes and the Apple store but incorporating ads into the music I purchase is a deal breaker for me. I would pay more than double for music WITHOUT ads and if there was no choice, I would start buying my music in CD format AGAIN.

This story is not about putting ads in music. That won't happen :o

I'm very much in favor of ad-supported content existing. There is no WAY I would spend $30-$50 a year for a TV show (with few exceptions). But I still do want to watch a couple, and the ads are more tolerable to me than the $50. If I can't fast-forward, I can still mute and walk away.

To each his own, of course.

koobcamuk
Sep 22, 2007, 04:07 AM
I think most people would watch/ignore ads-sponsored content over paying for it.

Would you rather download a TV episode for free with ads or pay $1.99 for it without ads? Because that's going to be a choice in the coming months. (if not from iTunes, then from NBC or Hulu)

arn

We don't even get the $1.99 price here in the UK - so I would rather torrent the damn things...

tjcampbell
Sep 22, 2007, 04:10 AM
I think it's a great idea as long as we are given the choice.

Baumi
Sep 22, 2007, 04:20 AM
I don't know about this - their site really looks rather unprofessional to me. They're in the video ad business but never even show a single example video anywhere. They ask their customers to provide info by filling out Word and Excel documents. On top of that, much of their grammar seems rather poor to me: (BTW, please excuse my own mistakes - English isn't my first language.)

Publish your videos how you already are.
[...] We have relationships with telco's, cableco's, and ISP's.

Add to that a completely empty news page and the unfortunate company slogan "Who's yo' daddy?", and it just doesn't look like a company I'd want to do business with.

I might be completely off here. Maybe they're devoting all their time towards making a better product and have no time left to improve their website, but a site like this just isn't good advertising for a company. That's especially bad, if you're in the advertising business...

SPUY767
Sep 22, 2007, 05:44 AM
I think most people would watch/ignore ads-sponsored content over paying for it.

Would you rather download a TV episode for free with ads or pay $1.99 for it without ads? Because that's going to be a choice in the coming months. (if not from iTunes, then from NBC or Hulu)

arn

Beat me to it.

I love iTunes and the Apple store but incorporating ads into the music I purchase is a deal breaker for me. I would pay more than double for music WITHOUT ads and if there was no choice, I would start buying my music in CD format AGAIN.

Yup, they're gonna put ads right in the middle, nay, right in the BEST PART of your favorit songs that you've paid for. Seriously, grow up. They will either offer shows at a reduced rate or for free with varying levels of ad content. The stuff we pay full price for, including our music will remain ad free. And seriously, did you even read the headline? a video ad company.

Right, but I don't see why Apple needs the assistance of a specific startup in this endeavor - splicing ads into a Quicktime file isn't exactly a technical challenge that I would expect to daunt Apple (makers of Final Cut Studio and Quicktime).

Whay you're going to see are adds that change dynamically. You likely won't see the same ad in a TV show if you were to watch it twice.

macduke
Sep 22, 2007, 05:59 AM
unless its for a quick (free) view, people want to own their content. they don't want some half-assed implementation either. people hate advertisements!! the last thing i want to listen to while i'm on my iphone is "head-on, apply directly to the forehead! head-on, apply directly to the forehead! head-on, apply directly to the forehead!". see how annoying that was? ironically, i got a headache just typing that.

*applies head-on directly to my forehead and calms down*

i predict this will fail just like ad supported dialup in the 90's.

Loge
Sep 22, 2007, 06:39 AM
i wonder if users would be able to fast-forward past the ads... if not, i'm sure it would be an easy hack...

If advertisers have paid to place the ads, then they will want assurances that you will not be able to FF.

As to hacks, well that's just more cat and mouse. At this rate, Apple will soon be spending more resources blocking hackers than developing new products.

Just say no to ads.

sanford
Sep 22, 2007, 07:02 AM
i don't know about this. most people hate ads...

Hating ads is like an American pastime -- and I'm sure, people being people, they aren't all that popular throughout the first world. But when the iTunes Store video launched I thought the stupidest thing in the world was taking the ads out of the TV programs. I think the problem was, video downloads of TV were an unproven quantity, therefore the networks couldn't get advertisers to pay extra for ads in the downloadable versions and they couldn't get other advertisers, or they didn't discount steeply enough, to place ads in them. So they just yanked out the ads, no pay no play. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

We may hate ads. I can't think of the last time I know I bought something because of an ad -- it was probably for one of the kids based on their requests. I'm not susceptible. My toddler son was, very much for a while, but when after some time he got the idea we don't usually buy for me what I point out on the TV ads, he's become less susceptible. But the point is either a lot of people are quite susceptible or advertisers believe they are. (Man, they work the kids on the children's networks, let me tell you. It's a good thing our toddler prefers movies on DVD to TV for video recreation.)

All that being said, ads are an excellent source of revenue that may decrease consumer convenience but well holds down consumer pricing. I think NBC's crazy wholesale price hike was a put-up a job, so they could not renew in order to do their own restrictive rental-based service without having to take the heat for their content no longer being available to iPod owners, which is a pretty big number in the downloadable media arena (the copyright enforcement argument was garbage as Apple has pretty well managed to tighten up FairPlay so certainly there's no quick, easy way to strip DRM from iTunes music; and I've never heard of a good FairPlay stripper for iTunes video; everything I've read indicates iTunes has *reduced* piracy as many "free" downloaders will choose to pay iTunes for an official license rather than download for free).

But in general advertising could help with a lot of these price point arguments. Most people will take pay+ads over not having access to the content for iPods at all, especially over this "expires in 72 hours" mess. The only thing NBC could be after in this is you miss a show, don't record, you pay for a time-limited viewing, then if you're a fan you buy the overpriced DVD version at the end of the year. If you buy through iTunes, you already have the season at the end of the year, no need to buy their outrageously priced DVDs -- the productions costs of which mind you have already been paid for and profit taken from advertising during the season.

I'm all for dealing with ads if it means more content choice available to consumers. You don't have to buy the ad-supported material if it bothers you that much.

iTunes has given TV networks the opportunity to make money an extra time for their content, and if allowing ads gives them yet another extra time and keeps providing the content, then I can deal with it. Not everyone will run ads. iTunes Store music labels want DRM, but look at EMI: not all labels insist on DRM, and that extra $.29 per track is and it isn't, as the album price has remained the same.

pubwvj
Sep 22, 2007, 07:09 AM
Wow. This is such a horrible idea. A large part of the point of buying music, DVDs, etc is to avoid the advertisements. I don't want to waste my time watching ads for products. If I want those products I'll go find them. If I'm not looking for them, I don't need them, don't want them and don't want to waste my time and money on them. Inline ads will be a huge turn-off and a product killer.

rockthecasbah
Sep 22, 2007, 07:24 AM
Wow. This is such a horrible idea. A large part of the point of buying music, DVDs, etc is to avoid the advertisements. I don't want to waste my time watching ads for products. If I want those products I'll go find them. If I'm not looking for them, I don't need them, don't want them and don't want to waste my time and money on them. Inline ads will be a huge turn-off and a product killer.

I agree, but even now DVDs have trailers and ads in them before you can get to the main menu! It doesn't really affect me because I don't buy video period from the iTMS, but if i were to, I would much rather pay a couple extra bucks and not have ads. It kinda defeats the purpose of buying really.

GregA
Sep 22, 2007, 08:08 AM
I think most people would watch/ignore ads-sponsored content over paying for it.

Would you rather download a TV episode for free with ads or pay $1.99 for it without ads?
If a local TV channel can afford to buy a movie & show it (as well as pay their staff & other overheads), and fund that by selling ads & showing them... then certainly its affordable for Apple to do the same.

However, I really hope they don't almost replicate the existing setup. I mean, really, if they force us to watch the ads... that must be worth more than when we can avoid them (so we should be able to watch less, right?). And if Apple shows ads that are customised to viewers needs... then we should be able to watch fewer ads and still watch them free.

Add to that the option to link to more information (websites, infomercials etc) .. and I hope that there really is an option to watch far fewer ads but to far greater effect, while giving us free TV.

TPALTony
Sep 22, 2007, 09:02 AM
Consider this rumor with the news that the new iPods can only play video out through some kind of new-fangled chip and you have everything pointing to a distribution model. I think Apple is finally moving toward a subscription service, and if so I think it would be great if they had the option for it to be ad-subsidized. I could ditch tv altogether and just get the stuff I want to see and have the option of paying for it or watching it with commercials.

I'm not aware of the video out chip for the new iPods but I would seriously doubt Apple would rely on that to enforce things. For 2 reasons. 1) Wouldn't do anything for watching on the iPod (not using video out then.) 2) They would never rely on something that less than 1% of iPod users currently have. In other words, there are 110million+ iPods out there without this restriction (OK, not all of them have video but tens of millions do!) If they relied on some new hardware thing they'd be helpless against their own installed user base!

be well

t

AtHomeBoy_2000
Sep 22, 2007, 09:17 AM
i think id like the choice.
some days im scrooge, other days i feel like no interruptions :)

Exactly! i have recently been watching all the episodes of Jericho on CBS' online distrobution. THe 30 second ads were annoying, but not bad. It's just their player that is buggy. FOr a one hour show, i can live with three 30second "brought to you by" ads.

LizKat
Sep 22, 2007, 09:29 AM
I'd muchrather pay for the content and have no adverts. In fact I would always choose a higher price without ads than a lower one (or even free) with them.

Got my vote on that, and I have put my money on it at the iTunes store already, buying individual shows or season passes. Now if they want to offer a dual model with a choice of ads (product is "free" or cheaper) or pay more for an ad-free version, great, bring it on. I suppose there will be flak no matter what Apple does. Those guys must have to stop for Yoga classes on the way to the bank, you think? The stress of success...

MacJoe
Sep 22, 2007, 09:34 AM
I have never purchased anything from an ad on a website. I will never do so. I specifically try to avoid companies that advertise this way. If Apple brings ads to iTunes content, they won't get my money. For about the past year, I've noticed that ads have slowed down access to many websites I regularly visit, including several Mac sites. It's always some stupid ad that hangs while loading. I just don't understand how corporate pinheads keep dreaming that this model will someday work. Stupid!

ATG
Sep 22, 2007, 09:44 AM
So either:
Apple content: Pay money + Ads
Bittorrent: Free + No ads

That's a great alternative to piracy, apple ;)

dwd3885
Sep 22, 2007, 09:50 AM
What's there to hate about ads when you can fast forward through them? Last time I checked, every iPod with video has that capability.:apple:


this thread is hilarious. many of you guys were saying 'ads!?!, no, that's the worst idea ever! Then Apple decides they might do it and you're like, 'oh, no big deal'

Come on fanboys

reallynotnick
Sep 22, 2007, 10:03 AM
The thing with TV shows is I only want to watch them once, I never want to go back and watch them again (there are so many new TV shows I could watch instead). Not to mention $2 a video just seems ridiculous when I could get the DVD for cheaper, better quality, and some extra crappy features.

I can rent DVD's for $1-$2 (new release), why should I pay more for a shorter, lower budget program? I want to be able to 'pay-per-view' TV shows for like 50.

Even better there should be a all you can eat subscription model, say $60 a month and you can get all the shows you can watch. Possibly have different pricing tiers like $10=12 shows, $20= 30 shows $40= 80 shows. I am just throwing numbers out there.

I personally have very little want to own TV shows or movies, you watch them, enjoy them, rinse and repeat.

sanford
Sep 22, 2007, 10:14 AM
Hulu's content most likely won't be playable on the iPod/iPhone. But it still will be appealing to iTunes users who would rather view shows once or twice without paying.

arn

Yeah, but arn, without iPod/iPhone/Apple TV you can't get the content off the computer and onto the TV without some Byzantine VGA or DVI-out screen-mirrored hoopla to TVs with the proper inputs or via a converter unit of some kind. Maybe I'm just too old, or too old-fashioned, but I just can't watch movies or TV programs, or read books for that matter, on a desktop or laptop computer. I just can't do it.

That was the beauty of iTunes-compatible NBC content: at the very least, without so much as an Apple TV, sync to the iPod, connect to any TV with composite inputs -- that's about any TV made in the last 15 years -- and you're watching the TV programs on TV. I'd rather pay for that than get it free on my computer.

oogje
Sep 22, 2007, 11:31 AM
I'd buy commercials if they were compiled into collections by subject or period. But I don't want to have to dig them out of TV shows or movies.

Rot'nApple
Sep 22, 2007, 11:40 AM
I think most people would watch/ignore ads-sponsored content over paying for it.

Would you rather download a TV episode for free with ads or pay $1.99 for it without ads? Because that's going to be a choice in the coming months. (if not from iTunes, then from NBC or Hulu)

arn

It may be an upcoming choice, but the real question is, will it be a successful choice? I see enough commercials played during a half hour sitcom or one hour tv show as it is now, why would I want to go through that again when puting content on a personal device of mine like the iPod?

Would you do that to a movie or a song just to have it for free? If not them, why tv?

Why not have a subscription based model for tv and movies versus ad supported free content or single item purchase? I have a whole boatload of tv shows and movies on VCR tapes and a modest collection of DVD movies, but I can't tell you when I last saw from my collection a DVD movie, and it's been even longer for a vcr taped tv show! With those of similar collections, how about you? When was your last time you viewed a vcr tape of a tv show you taped 5, 10, or 20 years ago or how about your last dvd/vcr movie? All my VCR tapes and DVD's collection is doing is gathering dust and being digital won't make a difference. The digital shows of today, will lose their fad and one's digital collection will soon gather "dust" too.

Even the one movie I bought on iTunes and the few free iTunes tv shows I added to my iTunes library, has been a while since viewing them. And that's my entire collection! I, personally, don't buy single episode or season pass tv shows or purchase movies only to have them gather "dust". But for a small premium (and it really has to be priced right) and for a little freedom (of being able to view content on iPod, computer or to tv via apple tv or some similar set-up for the pc world), a subscription of those tv shows and movies is the way to go in my opinion. So for the price of one cd or one dvd movie, you can enjoy an entire library or tv shows or movies.

Pay as you go or subscription based music is the only thing I could see as having supporters on either side of the debate.

To those who might argue about having subscription based tv shows and movie content, only to loose it when the subscription is canceled, I say, I don't miss my current collection of taped VCR tv shows and VCR/DVD movies now and they're in the room next to me!

chubad
Sep 22, 2007, 12:21 PM
Wow. This is such a horrible idea. A large part of the point of buying music, DVDs, etc is to avoid the advertisements. I don't want to waste my time watching ads for products. If I want those products I'll go find them. If I'm not looking for them, I don't need them, don't want them and don't want to waste my time and money on them. Inline ads will be a huge turn-off and a product killer.

Look at your sig!:rolleyes:

Virgil-TB2
Sep 22, 2007, 01:24 PM
... My issue with the NBCDirect thing is that a) it will require a proprietary player using a DRM system that I'm not familiar with (and accompanied by what-else-I-don't-know) and b) that it is not going to be Mac compatible in the immediate future (and I don't know if PPC will ever be supported). Running the same system through iTS would be worth while....Personally I don't do the "ad thing" at all but I understand your comment and I think most people would agree.

An important point to note however, would be that if one can watch ad supported content for free, then IMO the "paid for" content needs to be a notch better. This model makes sense to me only if the 1.99 show was a higher quality and without DRM of any kind.

I still don't even connect to iTunes myself because I just can't get behind the idea of paying for something unless you are actually getting "the thing itself" instead of a low-res copy of the thing. I will buy content from iTunes only when it's loss-less, no DRM and no restrictions. That's worth paying for.

MrCrowbar
Sep 22, 2007, 02:22 PM
I'd rather pay $1.99 and watch it without ads than download it for free and watch it with ads.

I paid to watch the Simpsons Movie in theatre. And it had a big ugly TV-Station ad in the middle. Walked out of the showroom, comlained big time and downloaded the movie at home.

We're at a time where you pay for your stuff with advertizing in it. I don't mind product placement, bascially every laptop in movies or TV shows has an apple on it. But that's because they're pretty and timeless, so you can't precisely date the movies according to the laptops they use. Except Sex in the City with the Manhatten Powerbook :D

SeaFox
Sep 22, 2007, 02:41 PM
Podaddies CEO claims that its technology is currently functioning on "connected iPod and iPhone devices" and is working on adding compatibility for disconnected devices. ("Connected" may refer to internet-connected like the iPod touch and iPhone.)

Or the AppleTV.

Previous reports have revealed (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/01/advertisments-on-itunes/) that Apple has been exploring the possibility of in-line video advertising. In-line ads would be video advertisements that would play at the beginning, middle or end of the content itself. In previous discussion it had been suggested that this in-line advertising would presumably discount the cost of the media itself.

I hope that discount would be free. Because the whole reason people pay for content (like in DVD box sets, ect) is to get it without advertising. If you have to watch ads, I might as well just record it off TV for free.

Edit: Actually, funny here: If you have to get ads to get it for free, you might as well just download a pirated copy that includes ads. In both cases you're getting content with ads, so arguably the creators are getting compensated both ways, but with the "pirated" content you don't get any DRM.

Fwink!
Sep 22, 2007, 03:03 PM
I would expect them to pepper the content with ads just like television. Otherwise someone will come up with a way to strip the DRM and edit off the beginning or end to create ad-free versions.

I also doubt the content will be free. Cheaper maybe. And they definitely won't do 2 versions (ad/ad free).

When you think about it television shows are more or less throw away content, and hardly worth any cost at all.

bluebomberman
Sep 22, 2007, 04:25 PM
What you're going to see are adds that change dynamically. You likely won't see the same ad in a TV show if you were to watch it twice.

Ah. Interesting idea. Might actually make the idea of ads in shows more tolerable.

Then again, I'm one of those people who almost never repeat-watch anything, and I'm sure a lot of people are like that, too.

GregA
Sep 22, 2007, 05:25 PM
this thread is hilarious. many of you guys were saying 'ads!?!, no, that's the worst idea ever! Then Apple decides they might do it and you're like, 'oh, no big deal'

Come on fanboys
It's an illusion, really.
50% of the crowd scream "I hate ads"....
later on, 50% of the crowd scream "ads are great"...

To the casual observer, they just hear the crowd shout the opposite.
But.... it's the OTHER 50%.

GregA
Sep 22, 2007, 05:29 PM
if one can watch ad supported content for free, then IMO the "paid for" content needs to be a notch better. This model makes sense to me only if the 1.99 show was a higher quality and without DRM of any kind.

That makes no sense. If the tv producers make the same money whether you pay for it, or you pay $0 and watch the ads (so the ad providers pay for it) - then why should one version be higher quality?

If, however, they make MORE money through one model, then I think your idea is arguable.

If you have to get ads to get it for free, you might as well just download a pirated copy that includes ads. In both cases you're getting content with ads, so arguably the creators are getting compensated both ways

I wonder what would have happened if 2 years ago "Azureus" (or whoever) automatically added ads to the pirate content, and then sent a cheque to the content makers :)

LizKat
Sep 22, 2007, 10:58 PM
... An important point to note however, would be that if one can watch ad supported content for free, then IMO the "paid for" content needs to be a notch better. This model makes sense to me only if the 1.99 show was a higher quality and without DRM of any kind...

To me, "paid for" content, i.e. without the ads, already IS higher quality, regardless of the technical video quality; that's how much I loathe TV ads.

C'mon, we're not talking about ads that win Cleos here. We're talking ads like those supporting cable TV show reruns. Once you open the door to ads at all, there's demonstrably no bottom to how bad they can get.

The DRM doesn't bother me, where am I taking my purchase anyway, past an iPod, iPod to TV via A/V cable, or just watch it on a powerbook? Nowhere!

fabianjj
Sep 23, 2007, 10:13 AM
To me, "paid for" content, i.e. without the ads, already IS higher quality, regardless of the technical video quality; that's how much I loathe TV ads.

C'mon, we're not talking about ads that win Cleos here. We're talking ads like those supporting cable TV show reruns. Once you open the door to ads at all, there's demonstrably no bottom to how bad they can get.

The DRM doesn't bother me, where am I taking my purchase anyway, past an iPod, iPod to TV via A/V cable, or just watch it on a powerbook? Nowhere!

I agree with you. Many people do. but not everybody. I'm not bothered by DRM, all i use my video for is watching on my PC, my iPod and my tv (via 10$ 10m composite cable through my graphics card). But I know that a lot of people would like the ability to play their content on a media player not produced by Apple. Like being able to burn at least ONE DVD-copy from every movie When you buy something, you usually would like to use it wherever you want

milo
Sep 23, 2007, 01:55 PM
I don't see why people are so negative over this.

A show now costs $1.99 on iTunes. If content providers could also give the option of the same show for free but with ads, even if they couldn't be skipped through, isn't that a good thing.

If you hate ads and don't want to see them, just stay away from the content with the ads.

If apple and their partners decided to do something like charging AND including ads, the market will speak up and avoid it.

I actually think the free streaming versions that some of the networks have done online are pretty cool, but the big annoyance is not being able to watch on a TV. If they could do free episodes with ads that could be played on an iPod, that would be really appealing and I'd probably watch some.

k2k koos
Sep 23, 2007, 02:33 PM
I hate adds, I don't want them on iTunes, or itunes content. If it means it will bring the price down, don't bother, I'd rather pay a small premium if it means no adds, I hate adds! :apple:

Virgil-TB2
Sep 23, 2007, 04:46 PM
... I still don't even connect to iTunes myself because I just can't get behind the idea of paying for something unless you are actually getting "the thing itself" instead of a low-res copy of the thing. I will buy content from iTunes only when it's loss-less, no DRM and no restrictions. That's worth paying for.

That makes no sense. If the tv producers make the same money whether you pay for it, or you pay $0 and watch the ads (so the ad providers pay for it) - then why should one version be higher quality?

If, however, they make MORE money through one model, then I think your idea is arguable. ...
I think you must have taken my comment the wrong way, as it's pretty plain and makes excellent sense to me. :)

If the choice is ad-suported vs. paid media, I prefer paid, but only if it's full-quality or "the actual thing." What's non-sensible about that? If I am paying for media outright, I want an actual copy of it that I can watch but also keep for the future, not a DRM'ed, "maybe exploding later," low res copy.

I think your problem is that you are just looking at the logic of the situation from the view point of the producers of the content, not the consumers of it. I am talking about what as a consumer I find acceptable, and you are countering with what as a producer, you find logical to offer.

Needless to say this is apples and oranges and I am not surprised at all that we don't agree.

pinksalmon
Sep 24, 2007, 05:26 AM
"just get outa here john! theres no such thing as a free lunch!":apple:

nimbuscloud
Nov 29, 2007, 11:20 PM
This partnership is going to make a LOT of sense in January...

:apple: