Poll: Would you prefer paying $1.99 per TV episode or Ad-Supported (free) TV Episodes via iTunes? [Archive]

swingerofbirch

Sep 21, 2007, 11:28 PM

Ads free is the way to go if Apple can start catching up resolution-wise. The idea of wasting hard disk space on advertisements is a bit much to swallow (not to mention they waste your time and interrupt your concentration and enjoyment of the show).

Commercials are one of the big reasons I don't watch TV and watch shows online instead.

Koodauw

Sep 21, 2007, 11:32 PM

I cant believe this poll is going the way it is. I would of thought before that $1.99 tv shows with no ads would crush the ad option.

QCassidy352

Sep 21, 2007, 11:45 PM

I cant believe this poll is going the way it is. I would of thought before that $1.99 tv shows with no ads would crush the ad option.

well, now it's 65% for the ad version. That's certainly my preference, by far!

balamw

Sep 21, 2007, 11:45 PM

I cant believe this poll is going the way it is. I would of thought before that $1.99 tv shows with no ads would crush the ad option.

I'm in between. I'd tolerate some shows with ads for free, but others are better without ads and I'll gladly pay $1.99. (Kids programming for example. Anything to stay away from the latest advertising).

B

Texas04

Sep 22, 2007, 12:14 AM

I would not mind MINIMAL ads that I could download along with the TV show. But I would want to be able to skip through them. I don't like the current ABC offering online where it is ad after ad after ad, it ruins the show! If there were minimal advertising and I could download the video and watch whatever part I want to.. I would be happy! Much like the current Diggnation podcasts or really any other podcast out there! A little bit of advertising is OKAY!

That being said, the networks will never go for that, so I will pay the dern 2 bucks and gimmie your freakin overpriced show...

mac_hine82

Sep 22, 2007, 01:06 AM

Eyetv need I say more

bluebomberman

Sep 22, 2007, 01:07 AM

Not a completely legit question. Our $1.99 downloads from iTunes don't go poof.

There's no telling how the "free downloads with ads" thing will play out - right now, NBC's free episodes degrade after 7 days, plus there's no word on whether you can download previous episodes or just the current week's offering. What about "free downloads with ads and no time limit?" Big difference.

(As an aside, a lot of people are predicting doom and gloom for NBC, but I'm not so sure yet - after all, most people still watch TV over the air, with no DVR ad skipping, time shifting, etc. NBC's "free download with ads" model isn't especially different from that, except for two problems: Mac/iPod compatibility and getting the video to your TV.)

hatcher002

Sep 22, 2007, 01:18 AM

i feel like i am being bombarded with adds these days every one wants to sell me something i rather pay then have to here how bob cant get his pecker up so i am apposed to adds in shows. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

CalBoy

Sep 22, 2007, 02:17 AM

I'd rather sit through some ads and see the episodes for free. Sure, a regular TV can do a lot of that, but I'd be able to watch it whenver I wanted; that's really a blessing when you have a crazy schedule and can't make it to watch the one or two shows you like (It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia--that show is the best thing I've seen in years!:D).

lilrichie

Sep 22, 2007, 04:06 AM

I would rather be given it free with a few ads after all we only pay the license to watch in the box so why pay $1.99 to re-watch it.

BKKbill

Sep 22, 2007, 06:59 AM

I would rather have no ad iTune TV episodes but being from the other side of the world we can't buy from iTunes. Hopefully if free with ads Apple will think we are not too alien. One can hope. Let's just get Leopard out in October so I can get my iMac.

jackc

Sep 22, 2007, 07:15 AM

Make it $0.99 and I'm much more likely to pony up.

rdowns

Sep 22, 2007, 07:35 AM

Customer choice gets my vote.

Edit: I have no interest in watching TV shows on my computer. Some do. I would like the choice to buy an occasional episode or 2 for my iPod or iPhone for when I travel. (And not have to download it, re-rip it etc)

OllyW

Sep 22, 2007, 07:52 AM

Unfortunately, our $1.99 episodes cost $3.78 :(

siurpeeman

Sep 22, 2007, 07:58 AM

i don't demand extremely high quality from my videos. and since they are videos, viewing once or twice is certainly enough. if i can save $1.99 per episode for five or six shows throughout the course of a season, it's money well-saved.

Tom B.

Sep 22, 2007, 08:20 AM

I would definitely prefer the free option. If I had to pay, I would only download my very favourites, but if they were free, I would download loads of shows that I might not otherwise be interested in.
But maybe I'm biased because TV shows cost £1.89/$3.81 here. :(

Yvan256

Sep 22, 2007, 09:14 AM

I'd rather pay 0.99$ for ad-free TV episodes, just like music. And put a discount on seasons (like when you buy a full music album).

Nothing matters anyway because no TV show or movie is available in Canada (except Pixar shorts).

netdog

Sep 22, 2007, 09:17 AM

Free. I believe that is the model that will triumph for TV shows. Movies are a different story, at least for now.

macFanDave

Sep 22, 2007, 09:39 AM

!¡ V ¡!

Sep 22, 2007, 11:04 AM

I can always fast-forward and edit the ads out, then watch. Free is always good. :)

!¡ V ¡!

Sep 22, 2007, 11:09 AM

Make it $0.99 and I'm much more likely to pony up.

Even at DVD quality it would be roughly $21-25 USD for the season. In comparison it would be more affordable to buy the physical product with all the extras. :)

Remember you also have to factor in cost of your internet connection, electricity usage, and your time when compared to the physical product.

rjames86

Sep 22, 2007, 11:26 AM

Eyetv need I say more

For sure. Only way to go

Brandon Sharitt

Sep 22, 2007, 11:35 AM

Until somebody does something about DRM, I guess I'll stick with bittorrent. I'm still not crazy about $1.99 per episode, I'd be willing to pay $0.99 or $1.49 or free with ads as long as I'm not being told how, where, or when I can play my video. I don't want to be locked into Apple or Microsoft compatible products.

manram24

Sep 22, 2007, 11:41 AM

just get it free then edit it via imovie, simple :apple::apple:

LizKat

Sep 22, 2007, 11:51 AM

Perfectly happy paying for ad-free versions in iTunes. Yeah, with DRM, so what. I love no-ads TV on my iPhone while I'm waiting for my coffee to happen. It's my new fave mode of watching TV. I don't actually own a TV set any more.

LizKat

Sep 22, 2007, 11:59 AM

MOVIES I'd pay for to have no ads, but TV I want for free with ads?

Here's my thinking: movies are intended for uninterrupted viewing in a theater, so when they chop it up to show it on TV with ads, it is just an awful experience. TV shows on the other hand are written like 2-, 3-, or 4-act plays where the intermissions are the commercials, so seeing them stripped of the ads will actually make it awkward (even the practice of FF'ing through commercials provides a compressed, though real, intermission period.)

The issue is moot for me anyways. I have a DVR at home and cannot watch videos on my morning commute (I drive) or at work, so the video functionality of my iPhone is under-utilized (but don't cry for me -- I'm working the Maps feature like a rented mule!)

I think the brief "blackout" between scenes on ad-free TV shows I've bought on iTunes works fine. Well maybe it's because I used to manually tape certain shows in real time on a VCR, trying to not tape the commercials. There wasn't enough --any!-- "blackout" between scenes in some of my hand-edited results, so I can sort of see your point. But it's not so abrupt in the iTunes ad-free ones. It feels like a fade to black and a fade back in to the new scene.

rjflyn

Sep 22, 2007, 12:45 PM

I can always fast-forward and edit the ads out, then watch. Free is always good. :)

I was going to say with the right software and a few minutes of time and poof ads go away anyhow. My choice would by $$ for XX quality vs free for ad filled YY quality, with the paid for choice being HD preferred.

Rj

macbones

Sep 22, 2007, 01:09 PM

TV ads take up about 20 minutes out of every hour. And cause brain damage. If 20 minutes of your time is not worth $1.99 get a life. In addition, if you buy a pass, it's more like $1.10/ episode. I am stunned that 2/3 of people responding would like to have ads. yuck! iTunes is about the only place on the internet to go for ad free content. Keep it up, Apple!!

wordmunger

Sep 22, 2007, 01:14 PM

You realize they're never going to do this unless they prevent you from fast-forwarding through the ads, right? I voted for $1.99. However, I've never bought a TV show in my life. I have TiVo for that. When TiVo stops letting me fast-forward through ads, I may very well cancel my satellite service and start paying for commercial-free TV, such as Apple TV.

CalBoy

Sep 22, 2007, 02:08 PM

If 20 minutes of your time is not worth $1.99 get a life.

Isn't $1.99 for a 30 minute show? I assumed that full hour shows would be a little more ($2.99?).

SummerBreeze

Sep 22, 2007, 02:18 PM

I'd definitely rather have free versions with ads. This is mostly because I pay $120 a month for cable television and internet, so it seems silly to pay $1.99 again for tv show episodes. That's why I like watching the shows on abc.com, or other network websites. But of course, it would be much better through iTunes.

JMax1

Sep 22, 2007, 03:22 PM

Eyetv need I say more

Amen, brother.

This is a very good poll, by the by

jettredmont

Sep 22, 2007, 03:42 PM

Personally, I find 15 minutes of my time (spent watching commercials for a 45 minute show) worth far more than $2. There is NO WAY the advertising model works for me!

That having been said, a $0.50 single-viewing model gives the show production company exactly what they get from advertising (for an hour-long show; half-hour shows get less per episode obviously). As such, I'm not exactly happy giving the television industry a 300% revenue boost for no significant quality boost. I'd be even happier paying $0.99 per episode!

jettredmont

Sep 22, 2007, 03:57 PM

(As an aside, a lot of people are predicting doom and gloom for NBC, but I'm not so sure yet - after all, most people still watch TV over the air, with no DVR ad skipping, time shifting, etc. NBC's "free download with ads" model isn't especially different from that, except for two problems: Mac/iPod compatibility and getting the video to your TV.)

NBC's move is the functional equivalent of them sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending the digital downloads world doesn't exist and isn't growing. If those things weren't true, yes, NBC's time-expiring, ad-inflicted model would be "no worse" than getting it free over the air, other than the fact that it is likely that the ads will require recognition (click to play, click to continue show afterwards) and loss of privacy (NBC keeps perfect tabs on who is viewing what and when).

On the other hand, the digital-download model is clearly superior, and is gaining momentum. It's not a good time to be an ostrich.

wrldwzrd89

Sep 22, 2007, 07:47 PM

Neither - I have no interest in downloading TV shows from iTunes.

srf4real

Sep 22, 2007, 08:02 PM

I would never consider paying for a tv show, but I would watch a free show supported by ads.

SeaFox

Sep 22, 2007, 08:13 PM

jettredmont

Sep 22, 2007, 10:35 PM

I'd like to see this poll redone with the additional stipulation that you cannot fast forward through the ads, and the number/amount of time for the ads given. Cause people are thinking "Oh, yeah. One ad, and I can just fast forward through it." which may no be the case.

Very true. I read it as online options, which typically forbid fast-forwarding and employ a mandatory interaction element (ie, click to start each of three ads, then click to continue the show; you can't just go to the bathroom when the ad hits, and you can't fast-forward through it).

It seems likely that many who see ads as reasonable are assuming some sort of Tivo control to fast forward or altogether skip them.

jettredmont

Sep 22, 2007, 10:45 PM

Fundamentally, I hate advertisement-supported anything.

I'd prefer to pay for what I use directly, and if my time is worth advertisers' dollars, they can come to me directly and pay me for that time and attention. I can guarantee you I'd pay a lot more attention to a series of ads if I was getting the $0.50 the marketing agencies paid to place them in front of me.

The only thing keeping me in front of the ad-supported television set has been lack of other options for that type of entertainment. Now that those options have opened up considerably, I find myself watching very little TV. Of course, what I do watch is filtered through the Tivo and commercial-skipped. Which seems like a bad situation for the advertisers (who are not getting their due for my eyeballs), for the TV network (because advertisers use studies showing people no longer view the commercials as reason to bargain for lower fees), and for the consumer (because certain types of shows cater to the less-sophisticated audience who aren't going to Tivo and commercial-skip, and those will get higher ad rates, and so those are all we end up with on the wasteland). It is not a sustainable model, and it will change one way or the other.

Ad-supported is worth the economic complexity only when the resulting direct-pay micro-payments cost more to administer than they are worth. Apple has shown this not to be the case at a mass-market product for $0.99 a shot. Obviously the same is true at the higher price point for TV shows today as well.

ChrisA

Sep 22, 2007, 11:22 PM

I wonder how people would vote if there were more detail in the poll? What if the ads could not be skipped over? What is the ad to content ratio is about 50%? What if buying the show meant you could move it between devices and the one with ads was in some format that could only be viewed with one specific media player?

I can always fast-forward and edit the ads out, then watch. Free is always good. :)

Are you sure? The free shows almost certainly will be copy protected and there will be no way to fast forward. Even worse it could be "click to continue" after each ad. Yes you'd have to click through five adds to get to the show.

Go if yu go to the bathroom during the ads it will hang after the first one plays and you will be forced to watch the others

Most TV viewers do not mind ads. The industry has known for decades that most viewers decide to turn on the TV before they check to see what is on. In other words they don't care to much what they watch.

Once you know that people most think fist "I want to watch TV" and "What's on?" then you can understand why the quality of programming is what it is.

SeaFox

Sep 23, 2007, 12:04 AM

Very true. I read it as online options, which typically forbid fast-forwarding and employ a mandatory interaction element (ie, click to start each of three ads, then click to continue the show; you can't just go to the bathroom when the ad hits, and you can't fast-forward through it).

I can see it applying to files downloaded as well. If advertisements are added, one thing I guarantee you is that you wont be able to fast-forward through them. The studios will make that a requirement to them accepting an advertising for reduced purchase price option. I only wonder if the ads will be part of the file. They could make the ads an outside database of video clips, that way the ads can be changed from time to time. Kinda like how TV advertising for baseball games works, lots of those signs you see in the TV game are just blank blue blocks on the actual field. The broadcaster adds the graphics to them in the feed, so at a later rebroadcast they can change them for new ads. Pretty cool, I thought (technology-wise).

Tumeg101

Sep 23, 2007, 12:13 AM

I would rather get free TV Shows with ads, because you can just fast forward through the ads... and then I would actually have stuff to fill my iPod lol

SeaFox

Sep 23, 2007, 12:24 AM

I would rather get free TV Shows with ads, because you can just fast forward through the ads... and then I would actually have stuff to fill my iPod lol
You can with an analog TiVo, or a VCR, but you might not in the future. Why do you think content providers are so hot to get you switched to digital cable and a cableco DVR?

Annndy!

Sep 23, 2007, 01:32 AM

I voted for the $1.99 & no ads option. I know it adds up, but two bucks to watch my favorite TV show episodes whenever I want ad-free is a pretty good deal to me.

plumosa

Sep 23, 2007, 05:35 AM

Personally, I find 15 minutes of my time (spent watching commercials for a 45 minute show) worth far more than $2. There is NO WAY the advertising model works for me!

TV ads take up about 20 minutes out of every hour. And cause brain damage. If 20 minutes of your time is not worth $1.99 get a life.

there is NO way that ads would take up 15-20 minutes of the show. ABC only requires four 30-second ads to watch their free shows online. I imagine there would be something similar going on here.

For that amount of time or similar, I'd put up with ads. Provided they were available in a timely manner, otherwise there are other free methods without ads I have no problem using.

s10

Sep 23, 2007, 11:50 AM

Consumers already have the option of viewing the TV show with ads in them.. on their TV (or recorded from TV)
So what's the point of presenting the same offer as a download, with only a week viewing time?

I prefer to have the iTunes option.. I don't have a TV and don't want one, but do watch some series once in a while.. so I download the full season and watch the episodes whenever I want.

s10

Sep 23, 2007, 11:53 AM

Unfortunately, our $1.99 episodes cost $3.78 :(

No, that's wrong, you're not in the US but in the UK... so they cost 1,89 Sterling. If you could buy from the US iTunes, the episodes would cost you only $0.99

thetacoman

Sep 23, 2007, 05:08 PM

What about $.99 for five minutes of ads? I'm sure we could all live with that...

CalBoy

Sep 23, 2007, 05:35 PM

No, that's wrong, you're not in the US but in the UK... so they cost 1,89 Sterling. If you could buy from the US iTunes, the episodes would cost you only $0.99

I'm sorry, WHAT? The episodes are a pound and 89 pence in the UK right? If we use current exchange rates, that means the Brits pay about $3.82 for their episodes. I don't get what you mean by $0.99 per episode.

What about $.99 for five minutes of ads? I'm sure we could all live with that...
What would be the point of that? I'd much rather throw in another buck in that case and get the episode ad-free. Most episodes already have about 8 minutes of ads; by paying $1 for a three minute reduction, I'd be getting a bad deal.

Arcady

Sep 23, 2007, 05:48 PM

I vote for option 3: neither.

I have a TiVo.

RossoA

Sep 23, 2007, 07:59 PM

I'm sorry, WHAT? The episodes are a pound and 89 pence in the UK right? If we use current exchange rates, that means the Brits pay about $3.82 for their episodes. I don't get what you mean by $0.99 per episode.

He means, if you bought them from the US iTS like me, they cost 99p rather than £1.89.

Hooray for having a US account :D

CalBoy

Sep 23, 2007, 08:03 PM

He means, if you bought them from the US iTS like me, they cost 99p rather than £1.89.

Hooray for having a US account :D

Doesn't Apple add sales taxes and the like? I know that if I bought a tv show, I'd be paying $2.16 after taxes (17 cents of tax on $1.99). I assumed that Apple had accounts tied to a physical address.

siurpeeman

Sep 23, 2007, 08:07 PM

Doesn't Apple add sales taxes and the like? I know that if I bought a tv show, I'd be paying $2.16 after taxes (17 cents of tax on $1.99). I assumed that Apple had accounts tied to a physical address.

you sure about that? i live in california, and i've never been taxed on itunes material. check your statements.

CalBoy

Sep 23, 2007, 08:15 PM

you sure about that? i live in california, and i've never been taxed on itunes material. check your statements.

Well, I can't remember for sure now, but this (http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/sales.html) backs me up. There is a paragraph about sales tax.

siurpeeman

Sep 23, 2007, 08:17 PM

Well, I can't remember for sure now, but this (http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/sales.html) backs me up. There is a paragraph about sales tax.

yes, but california doesn't currently tax digital goods.

CalBoy

Sep 23, 2007, 08:23 PM

yes, but california doesn't currently tax digital goods.

Hmmm...I could have sworn I was taxed on it, but then again, it's been a while since I've bought off of iTunes (mbps don't come cheap:eek::)). Well, I'll trust you and agree that I never paid sales taxes. But, it doesn't change the nature of original point: doesn't one have to put a physical location down? Otherwise, there would little in the way for Europeans to always buy off of the US store (as it's much cheaper).

Butthead

Sep 23, 2007, 08:39 PM

If it's in reasonable definition (i.e. comparable to DVD or better), fullscreen, and the episodes are archived, then I'll go for ads/free. But I have to admit I've yet to buy a TV show from iTunes.... Same here, all of the above, including yet to buy. However I don't watch that much TV other than the news/weather recently. To catch something I missed, or maybe I series that interested me (say BG, that is only available on cable/sat and I only get OTA at present) and I wanted to keep up on it at my own time, I'd pay.

I'd pay...I like not have the ads on it...they are a waste of time for me...if they put ads on them, but there free, I feel like they aren't mine(as much as they would be if I paid for them)

I'd pay, it's worth my limited time to not see ads. However, I'd pay for an even greater premium service that rids me of those gawd awful network/station logos that are superimposed over the corners of the image through out the entier program...I hate those with a purple passion!!!

Do they have those on the iTunes TV shows? I've never bought at TV series on DVD, I"m wondering if they remove that...I suppose they would, yes? Guess you date yourself, if you can remember the times when there were *none*, no superimposed TV/network ID logos ...those where the days, lol.:p

Billy Boo Bob

Sep 24, 2007, 12:31 AM

I go along with "Give them the option"... Those who want to pay, fine... Those who don't, fine, too.

They would have to offer both... If they just switched over to all ads and no option they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. But with the option, both camps would be happy. And you'd probably find a lot of people doing a little of both... A favorite show (maybe a keeper) they'll pay for... A "doesn't really matter" show, they'll get with ads.

Besides, I'd give it a week or two before the first hacks come out that allow at least killing the "no-fast-forward" lock, if not a "strip the commercials" app.

Analog Kid

Sep 24, 2007, 03:41 AM

I don't get the point of having another way of getting ad wrapped TV. Why would I go through the trouble of downloading what's being broadcast?

A lot of people seem to think they'll be able to just strip the ads. First, this is probably an even bigger pain in the butt than just watching them. Second, doing so isn't any better than pulling the show down from the torrents-- if the ads are paying for the show, and you strip the ads, you're not paying for the show.

I'd also expect a QT update to allow locking out of the fast forward controls during specified segments.

If all the networks pull out and this is the only way for Apple to distribute content to iPods and :apple:TVs, then so be it-- it'll be the equivalent to internet radio. Short of that though, turn a distinct product into simply being a equivalent to broadcast.

motulist

Sep 24, 2007, 04:02 AM

I cant believe this poll is going the way it is. I would of thought before that $1.99 tv shows with no ads would crush the ad option.

That's because the poll question is so malformed that the results are skewed to the point of being useless. Meaning, a very significant number of people would choose the option for neither or either if they were offered, so the resulting answer among the limited options listed is useless. It's a false choice poll.

-----------------------------------------
Would you rather:

() drown a baby to death
() burn a baby to death
-----------------------------------------

The outcome to a poll where your answer options are limited to choices that don't include options that many respondents would've chosen means the results are skewed to the point of meaningless. Obviously in the above poll the majority opinion would be not to kill a baby at all, but since that isn't an option then you're left with people choosing between 2 options they don't want when in reality they actually have other unlisted options to choose from.

A more meaningful poll would be something like the following.

-----------------------------------------
I would legally download tv shows on a regular basis if:

() the price is as high as $1.99 per show
() the price is as high as $0.99 per show
() the price is less than $0.99 per show
() advertisements are unskippably embedded in them, but are free
() any of the above
() none of the above
-----------------------------------------

bretm

Sep 24, 2007, 04:54 PM

I cant believe this poll is going the way it is. I would of thought before that $1.99 tv shows with no ads would crush the ad option.

Seriously? I've never bought a tv show on itunes. And if I did, it'd have to be waaaay more inline than $2. I have bought a few DVDs of TV, like Arrested Development. But the episodes come in at more like 75 cents and they've got bonus material, and they're better sound and visual quality. Not to mention now I have the disc. I can take it on vacations, I can lend it to my friends or I can watch it on any DVD player in the house, etc.

Free with ads would be a nice convenience because if I missed an episode or found a show I really like I could start catching up on back episodes or not worry about TiVo (which isn't free either). It'd be like TiVo ing everything!

ucfgrad93

Sep 24, 2007, 05:54 PM

I'd rather pay and be ad free. That said, I think there should be both choices. Let customers decide.

Like you, I prefer paying and not having to watch ads, and I agree that there should be a choice.

pimentoLoaf

Sep 24, 2007, 06:03 PM

$1.99 with no ads -- I want a visual experience of story without something interfering with the thought flow.

shamino

Sep 24, 2007, 11:55 PM

I want the option to go either way.

If I'm downloading a show because I missed the TV broadcast, and only plan on watching it once, then free-with-ads is best. But I don't want it to expire - I might not get around to watching it immediately, or I may want to show it to a friend.

If, however, I'm downloading a show because it's a really good episode that I want to keep as a permanent fixture in my collection, then I'd much prefer to pay $2 for an ad-free version.
Seriously? I've never bought a tv show on itunes. And if I did, it'd have to be waaaay more inline than $2. I have bought a few DVDs of TV, like Arrested Development. But the episodes come in at more like 75 cents and they've got bonus material, and they're better sound and visual quality.
This really depends on the series in question. For instance, each season of Star Trek Next Generation costs $50-70 for 26 episodes (a per-episode cost of $1.90-2.70). Season 1 of Battlestar Galactica costs $40-60 for 13 episodes plus a 2-hour movie ($2.66-4.00 per program-hour). Star Trek Voyager box sets still cost $95-140 for 24 episodes ($3.95-5.83 per episode).

In other words, while there are plenty of DVD boxes of TV shows where episodes cost much less than $2 each, there are plenty that cost more.

shen

Sep 25, 2007, 01:06 AM

I cant believe this poll is going the way it is. I would of thought before that $1.99 tv shows with no ads would crush the ad option.

ads are evil, as in from the devil, marketing is all the philosophical proof you need that evils is real.

....even Apples ads are, at best, simply proof that evil can be attractive and well done.

the fact that the poll is as it is, is only proof that people have been brain washed into accepting evil. simple as that....

MikeTheC

Sep 25, 2007, 01:04 PM

I would rather bulk-purchase TV programming than pay a per-ep fee, however that also assumes I get a break on the cost, too. And definitely I don't want any ads, fracking or otherwise. :eek:

See, here's the deal:
I believe in channeling money to the artist, and then to anyone else to defray their expenses and give them some profit to justify the business venture.
I believe in not having to sit through ads (although I'll admit the "embedded non-obnoxious bug" route is interesting).
I want it my way and my way only, and since I require an incentive to watch TV in the first place, I'm in the enviable position of being able, quite easily in fact, to walk away from this entire deal at any point, because I really don't care.

iWizzard

Sep 25, 2007, 04:15 PM

I would like with ads but I think many people will download them from both Itunes and via a torrentsite. They will only dl them via Itunes so it apers that they ar watching them.

shamino

Sep 26, 2007, 09:15 AM

I cant believe this poll is going the way it is. I would of thought before that $1.99 tv shows with no ads would crush the ad option.
It's a bad poll. There are only two options, neither of which is very good. For instance, when I want to keep TV shows, I buy DVDs. For the stuff I don't plan on keeping (what I would download), I'd prefer free-with-ads.

A better set of poll choices might be:

I only want paid-without-ads
I only want free-with-ads
I usually want paid-without-ads, but would sometimes prefer free-with-ads
I usually want free-with-ads, but would sometimes prefer paid-without-ads
I don't usually download TV shows, but for the few I do download, I'd prefer paid-without-ads
I don't usually download TV shows, but for the few I do download, I'd prefer free-with-ads
I don't care, I don't ever download TV shows

In this case, my choice would be 6, which is different from saying "I want ads" - which is the closest equivalent in the current poll.

BlakTornado

Sep 26, 2007, 06:31 PM

Free with ads?

Isn't that just general TV anyway?

Personally, I wouldn't mind if they weren't too obtrusive. I would LOVE to download Lost Season 3 for free with ads, knowing that my computer won't be harmed by dodgy viruses or I'm really downloading a porn file disguised as a Lost Season 3 episode.

I think the ads would be a good option for people like me who can't afford to pay £32 for the episodes.

The option should be available, but as an option

ITASOR

Sep 26, 2007, 10:04 PM

Movies I can see paying for. TV episodes I cannot. A movie you can watch over and over, who watches a TV show episode over again? And if you do watch shows over again you would want the whole series on DVD or something. I would rather just not see a TV show episode I missed then pay $2 for it when I already pay for cable to get the TV show in the first place.

MikeTheC

Sep 27, 2007, 02:45 AM

It's a bad poll. There are only two options, neither of which is very good. For instance, when I want to keep TV shows, I buy DVDs. For the stuff I don't plan on keeping (what I would download), I'd prefer free-with-ads.

A better set of poll choices might be:

I only want paid-without-ads
I only want free-with-ads
I usually want paid-without-ads, but would sometimes prefer free-with-ads
I usually want free-with-ads, but would sometimes prefer paid-without-ads
I don't usually download TV shows, but for the few I do download, I'd prefer paid-without-ads
I don't usually download TV shows, but for the few I do download, I'd prefer free-with-ads
I don't care, I don't ever download TV shows

In this case, my choice would be 6, which is different from saying "I want ads" - which is the closest equivalent in the current poll.

Hey, Shamino, I think you missed one. How about...

8. I'd like to raze Hollyweird to the ground, then dance around on it's ashes and sing "Hallelujia!"

Trekkie

Sep 27, 2007, 10:19 AM

I'd rather pay thanks. I don't want commercials and if you provide it with them, you're going to force me to watch and not skip like I can today.

leekohler

Sep 27, 2007, 06:31 PM

I don't have cable, nor will I ever. The answer si yes- I'll pay for the show from iTunes. As a matter of fact, that's how I watch all the cool cable shows. It's cheaper than cable and I watch them when I want.

Chrystal Ocean

Sep 27, 2007, 07:14 PM

Definitely free, with (a minimal amount of) ads. Don't own a TV because of cost. Getting free TV shows - beyond the P2P option - would be nice.

bdj21ya

Sep 28, 2007, 01:18 AM

I'd rather have both options. Or better yet, the option to rent it for a week with no ads for 99 cents. Honestly I delete all the episodes I buy anyway. I just buy them when the DVR messes somthing up. Makes it simple to get good quality video (not great quality, but it's nothing like the crap you get on the networks websites).

MikeTheC

Sep 28, 2007, 01:37 AM

Alright, here's a current-events example:

On Wednesday, the broadcast network formerly affiliated with iTunes (herein after TBNFAWI) aired the new Bionic Woman.

I wasn't home at the time it was aired, I don't own a DVR, and while it's true that we have an available VCR in the house, I didn't feel like bothering, so I sought alternative means to acquire the episode.

And before the rest of you jump on me for bypassing advertisers *gasp!* let me assure you I would have been fast-forwarding though the ads had I recorded them, no matter what recording means was used, so the ads would not, in effect, be seen by me, regardless of the means used for me to view the episode.

Now, having said that, I watched TBNFAWI's new little show, and being thoroughly unimpressed and not-drawn-into both the story line and the characters, I deleted the file. And, moreover, I can assure you I will not be watching any further episodes of NuBW.

So, I told you all that to tell you this. I was thrilled to know I didn't have to put up with "salt in the wound" that is paying for an episode of a program which I have decided not to follow and, generally, ever watch again.

So chew on that as you will...

arkmannj

Sep 28, 2007, 10:23 AM

I marked that I would want $1.99, but I think the poll should have a third option.

Both. I would want the option to get either/both versions.

Spanky Deluxe

Sep 28, 2007, 12:13 PM

Couldn't there be three options? One saying both. Free episodes available with ads and $1.99 episodes without ads. Some things you just want to watch as if on tv. Other things you want to own and go and buy dvds or boxsets etc.

Cerebrum

Oct 25, 2007, 11:39 PM

I wouldn't mind ad-filled version.

Claytoniss

Nov 15, 2007, 04:02 PM

You people are all crazy! i buy my episodes at 199 with adds in them! Just look at all the stuff that is being advertised but isn't actually a commercial. Apple and car companies are really good at this. Especially in movies and you can spot them everywhere.

So i hate ads, but I think the people are the same people that don't mind free yahoo, g-mail kinds of services. This is the main reason why I purchase my .mac account. Advertising free.

I personally don't pay for cable, and am pissed because 90% of the shows I watch are of course on NBC. So there goes my purchase of an :apple:TV! If I was still in college and had time on my hands I would edit and cut up all my episodes whatever, but to me, my time IS MONEY, so I would pay.

Virgil-TB2

Nov 15, 2007, 04:08 PM

Vote: Poll: Would you prefer paying $1.99 per TV episode or Ad-Supported (free) TV Episodes via iTunes? (http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=558)I would prefer posting the poll in the forum instead of on an external poll site so that the users of the forum (i.e. - me), can use the poll. :)

If you are just going to use macpolls.com and you wanted to tell us about it, then the correct thread type should have been ... "Hey, there's a poll over at macpolls.com that I'd like people to see/use." If you want to post a poll for the forum, then use the forum poll.

ingenious

Nov 15, 2007, 07:37 PM

I would prefer posting the poll in the forum instead of on an external poll site so that the users of the forum (i.e. - me), can use the poll. :)

If you are just going to use macpolls.com and you wanted to tell us about it, then the correct thread type should have been ... "Hey, there's a poll over at macpolls.com that I'd like people to see/use." If you want to post a poll for the forum, then use the forum poll.

um, MacPolls.com is a MacRumors site... it's what they use for "official" polls on the forum...:confused:

the poll's closed now because they're only open for a week and this one is almost two months old.