PDA

View Full Version : Dear Apple, I want HD tv shows that I can RENT




boxlight
Jun 24, 2008, 09:42 AM
Dear Apple,

Samantha Who? is a great looking TV show. When I record it on my Rogers PVR I get it in HD and it looks awesome.

Then when I browse for the episodes I missed on my Apple TV there are two problems:

- they are standard def so they look like junk compared to the HD episodes I recorded on my PVR

- they are purchase only; I don't want to buy it $1.99, I just want to watch it once, it would be great if I could rent an episode for $0.25 or $0.50.

Thanks,
box



kornyboy
Jun 24, 2008, 09:45 AM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

I agree. Renting would be nice especially for that cheap. Can you say bye bye Cable TV if that were to happen (at least for me anyway)?

spacepower7
Jun 24, 2008, 10:44 AM
Renting would be great, but even having TV in HD would be nice.

Last I checked Lost wasn't in HD, maybe things have changed?

Why should I pay $2 for Lost in SD when I can get it for free in HD from questionable sources?

Until Apple/ABC offers me a (legal) product that I want, I will have to go elsewhere.

This past season of Lost was on the Bay, in AppleTV HD format, with almost all of the meta filled out including plot summary and main characters for each particular episode. Thanks Hooghlyrocks :D

Apple/ABC could have had $28 bucks from me for 14 episodes but now I have HD versions, so no need to buy the DVD box set either.

Who is the idiot running ABC nowadays?

Missed opportunities :rolleyes:

boxlight
Jun 24, 2008, 11:26 AM
Why should I pay $2 for Lost in SD when I can get it for free in HD from questionable sources?
Missed opportunities :rolleyes:

Yeah, that's exactly it. I want the episodes I missed, and the only way to get them is to buy them via Apple TV, but they're standard def.

I want to see them in HD, and currently the *only* way to do so is to get a torrent (unfortunately the only torrents I see are in MKV format which does not convert to AppleTV nicely).

I want to be legal, but there's literally no way to get the HD product in a legal way. And that being said, buying an episode of a sitcom I'm only going to watch once for $1.99 doesn't make too much financial sense to me. Renting it for $0.25 would be super cool.

ratter
Jun 25, 2008, 07:55 AM
I have yet to dabble in TV at all with my ATV because the one TV episode I purchased - an episode of The Deadliest Catch - looked like crap! Is the quality that bad across the board with purchased shows??

jb60606
Jun 25, 2008, 08:01 AM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

I agree. Renting would be nice especially for that cheap. Can you say bye bye Cable TV if that were to happen (at least for me anyway)?

I've already cancelled my premium cable services. I'd cancel the whole thing if it weren't for sports and if I wasn't required to keep at least basic cable (condo rules).

TheNightPhoenix
Jun 25, 2008, 08:44 AM
Dear Apple,

Samantha Who? is a great looking TV show. When I record it on my Rogers PVR I get it in HD and it looks awesome.

Then when I browse for the episodes I missed on my Apple TV there are two problems:

- they are standard def so they look like junk compared to the HD episodes I recorded on my PVR

- they are purchase only; I don't want to buy it $1.99, I just want to watch it once, it would be great if I could rent an episode for $0.25 or $0.50.

Thanks,
box

This is going to sound rude but...
We're not Apple,
Please try contacting them via the support site or email. It doesn't matter how much noise you make to us, it's no good if Apple doesn't hear it!

vendettabass
Jun 25, 2008, 09:46 AM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

I agree. Renting would be nice especially for that cheap. Can you say bye bye Cable TV if that were to happen (at least for me anyway)?

for sure, me too! 35p in UK please?

P-Worm
Jun 25, 2008, 09:46 AM
Although I would love to see TV show rentals at $0.25 or $0.50, I just can't see how that is economically feasible for the people that make the shows. Think about it - if people had the opportunity to rent a show rather than buy it, who would even think about buying it? I sure wouldn't. The show makers need to offset the cost of not including commercials somehow.

The only alternative I can think of is allowing you to rent the show in SD for a small price, but let you buy it in HD for a higher price. That would encourage sales, but allow others to get it cheap.

I agree with you on lack of HD television content. It's just ridiculous that everything is standard definition.

P-Worm

boxlight
Jun 25, 2008, 10:21 AM
This is going to sound rude but...
We're not Apple,
Please try contacting them via the support site or email. It doesn't matter how much noise you make to us, it's no good if Apple doesn't hear it!

LOL.

Just FYI, I was being facetious when I wrote "dear Apple". But thanks for the suggestion.

Diatribe
Jun 25, 2008, 10:25 AM
I agree, this would be nice, although what I would love even more are movies and TV series in HD for sale. The HD movies look good enough in HD compared to Blu-Ray that for $10 less I'd almost always go for the download version.

boxlight
Jun 25, 2008, 10:26 AM
... rentals at $0.25 or $0.50 ... if people had the opportunity to rent a show rather than buy it, who would even think about buying it? I sure wouldn't. The show makers need to offset the cost of not including commercials somehow.


Two things.

One: People buy movies when they can rent them for 25%-30% of the cost (I don't know why they do this, but they do). So I don't think your $0.25 rent versus $1.99 buy argument holds up. Case in point, if I could have rented Samantha Who? in HD for $0.25 a show, they would have made a few bucks off of me; instead they got nothing.

Two: It occurs to me that I don't actually mind if they include their commercials in the TV shows. And that gives me another idea ...

Why not put the shows on AppleTV with commercials included in the show and let us watch them on demand for free? They can even inhibit the fast-forward during the commercials if they want.

Eric Lewis
Jun 25, 2008, 10:34 AM
The average movie is 1.5 hours..they go for $2.99 and $3.99
which equals 90 minutes

...for a 3 dollar rental you pay 0.03333....cents/ minute
for a 4 dollar rental you pay 0.44444....cents/minute

Most Tv Shows are 45 minutes or 25 minutes (without commercials)

for a 45 minute show you should pay $1.49 (based on 0.0333 rate)
for a 25 minute show you should pay $0.89 cents (rounded from .83) (based on 0.0333)

But the question is who would rent a show for $1.49 when you can buy it for $1.99 ??

All tv show rentals should be priced at $0.99 then its fair! because for a 45 minute show you pay 0.022 cents/ minute

boxlight
Jun 25, 2008, 12:13 PM
All tv show rentals should be priced at $0.99

Your pricing logic is sound, but I still don't see myself renting a show for $0.99. Just seems like a little too much for a 22 minute show.

Make it $0.49 and we have a deal. :)

jeremy.king
Jun 25, 2008, 12:50 PM
Dear Apple,

Samantha Who? is a great looking TV show. When I record it on my Rogers PVR I get it in HD and it looks awesome.

Then when I browse for the episodes I missed on my Apple TV there are two problems:

- they are standard def so they look like junk compared to the HD episodes I recorded on my PVR

- they are purchase only; I don't want to buy it $1.99, I just want to watch it once, it would be great if I could rent an episode for $0.25 or $0.50.

Thanks,
box

Dear Box,

May we suggest that you setup your PVR to record reruns of Samantha Who? as ABC will be running them all summer long. Also, please be aware that ABC has past shows on their website at http://abc.go.com/player/

We're sorry we are unable to meet your demands, but please understand that there is no possible way that TV networks would allow us to "rent" HD television shows to consumers at such an affordable price. If we were to do this, it would reduce demand for Cable/Satellite TV and lead to lower rates or cheaper plans and that would only benefit consumers.

Thanks,

Apple

;)

BornAgainMac
Jun 25, 2008, 02:08 PM
This is going to sound rude but...
We're not Apple,
Please try contacting them via the support site or email. It doesn't matter how much noise you make to us, it's no good if Apple doesn't hear it!

The thread starter could be poising as a general user but really be secreting working for Apple to test market an idea with general Mac users. I bet Apple employees are always complaining on these boards so they don't get tipped off. :eek:

P-Worm
Jun 25, 2008, 03:29 PM
People buy movies when they can rent them for 25%-30% of the cost (I don't know why they do this, but they do). So I don't think your $0.25 rent versus $1.99 buy argument holds up. Case in point, if I could have rented Samantha Who? in HD for $0.25 a show, they would have made a few bucks off of me; instead they got nothing.

I see movies as something completely different. People buy movies because they want to come back to them time and time again. TV shows aren't like that as much. There's the occasional show that I like to go back to (Lost and Seinfeld come to mind), but even shows that I love like House are only interesting once. I think people are willing to rewatch movies before TV shows because in the case of a movie they are only investing 2 hours or so, but in the case of a TV show you're invested for an entire season or more (sitcoms aren't like this as much).

Just to see if this is valid, ask yourself: "If I had the option of renting a show for $0.25 or buying it for $1.99, what shows would I buy?" I'm guessing that almost nothing springs to mind.

I don't think that you're comment that they could have received money, but doesn't hold up either. They didn't lose out on money because you had no place to get the content (you can buy it on the iTunes store if you want), but because you didn't like their pricing or quality and decided to steal it instead. You're blaming them for you committing a crime. I'm not trying to single you out or pass judgement here, but do you see where the content creators are coming from?

P-Worm

gkarris
Jun 25, 2008, 03:52 PM
Dear Box,

May we suggest that you setup your PVR to record reruns of Samantha Who? as ABC will be running them all summer long. Also, please be aware that ABC has past shows on their website at http://abc.go.com/player/

We're sorry we are unable to meet your demands, but please understand that there is no possible way that TV networks would allow us to "rent" HD television shows to consumers at such an affordable price. If we were to do this, it would reduce demand for Cable/Satellite TV and lead to lower rates or cheaper plans and that would only benefit consumers.

Thanks,

Apple

;)


Right answer - YOU WIN!

You get to purchase an iPhone for $199 and pay $30/month for the "PDA Dataplan" on top of an expensive voice plan from AT&T... :eek:

:D

zedsdead
Jun 25, 2008, 03:52 PM
I can't see them doing the .25 or .50 cents, however, I can see them doing some sort of monthly subscription model, for both movies and TV shows. HD is a must!

jb60606
Jun 26, 2008, 01:23 PM
It's wishful thinking, but what I'd like to see is the option to purchase a movie - at a prorated cost - after you've rented/viewed it. Perhaps it's just a poor habit on my part but after watching a new rental, I constantly find myself wishing I bought the movie instead of renting. "The Savages (http://www.amazon.com/Savages-Phillip-Seymour-Hoffman/dp/B0014GI6I2/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1214504578&sr=8-1)" is the latest example.

Though, with all the crap Hollywood releases these days, can you blame me for renting?

Movielink.com and Cinemanow.com let you re-rent a film at a discount. I'd like to see Apple & the studios take it a little further.

Diatribe
Jun 26, 2008, 02:18 PM
It's wishful thinking, but what I'd like to see is the option to purchase a movie - at a prorated cost - after you've rented/viewed it. Perhaps it's just a poor habit on my part but after watching a new rental, I constantly find myself wishing I bought the movie instead of renting. "The Savages (http://www.amazon.com/Savages-Phillip-Seymour-Hoffman/dp/B0014GI6I2/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1214504578&sr=8-1)" is the latest example.

Though, with all the crap Hollywood releases these days, can you blame me for renting?

Movielink.com and Cinemanow.com let you re-rent a film at a discount. I'd like to see Apple & the studios take it a little further.

I agree, that would be a great idea. The only thing holding me back though from buying instead of renting is that with renting I get DD and HD, which I don't when I buy the movie.

boxlight
Jun 27, 2008, 09:29 AM
People buy movies because they want to come back to them time and time again. TV shows aren't like that as much.
...
There's the occasional show that I like to go back to (Lost and Seinfeld come to mind), but even shows that I love like House are only interesting once. I think people are willing to rewatch movies before TV shows because in the case of a movie they are only investing 2 hours or so, but in the case of a TV show you're invested for an entire season or more (sitcoms aren't like this as much).
...
Just to see if this is valid, ask yourself: "If I had the option of renting a show for $0.25 or buying it for $1.99, what shows would I buy?" I'm guessing that almost nothing springs to mind.


Some examples; I bought the first four seasons of Seinfeld on DVD, but I only watched each episode of Friends once.

So with iTunes, I would buy Seinfeld ($1.99), and I would rent Friends ($0.49).

Similarly, I bought Terminator 2 and have watched it a few times, but I only rented Terminator 3 once.

My point is, I think TV and movies is pretty much the same, and the buy versus rent comparison holds up.


I don't think that you're comment that they could have received money, but doesn't hold up either. They didn't lose out on money because you had no place to get the content


I disagree because I have not seen the shows, but I would have rented a handful of episodes for $0.49 each. As it stands, they got $0 from me because I'm not interested in buying for $1.99 each. The didn't get my money, simple math, no?


but because you didn't like their pricing or quality and decided to steal it instead. You're blaming them for you committing a crime. I'm not trying to single you out or pass judgement here, but do you see where the content creators are coming from?


No, I don't see where you're coming from at all. My simple suggestion is that they put their HD content up for rent and that they are losing money because they are not doing this.

Regarding stealing, to make money they have to provide product of sufficient quality at a competitive price. And it's true that their competition is HD quality for free via torrent, so they'd better get their butts in gear or they will continue to not earn the money that it out there for the taking.

P-Worm
Jun 27, 2008, 10:02 AM
Some examples; I bought the first four seasons of Seinfeld on DVD, but I only watched each episode of Friends once.

So with iTunes, I would buy Seinfeld ($1.99), and I would rent Friends ($0.49).

Similarly, I bought Terminator 2 and have watched it a few times, but I only rented Terminator 3 once.

My point is, I think TV and movies is pretty much the same, and the buy versus rent comparison holds up.

Like I said in my post, there are exceptions for TV shows - I even stated Seinfeld. There's a show we both agree is worth owning. :)

But when I look at my collection, I have very few TV shows and a lot of movies. I'm not sure exactly why that is, but I don't think that I'm that different from the rest of the world when it comes to this. Maybe I buy fewer TV shows because a whole series costs over $40? Or maybe because I don't want to invest the time to watch a whole series again? Whatever it is, I'll buy a movie long before I'll buy a TV show.

Is there anyone else that does the same here, or am I just weird? :o



I disagree because I have not seen the shows, but I would have rented a handful of episodes for $0.49 each. As it stands, they got $0 from me because I'm not interested in buying for $1.99 each. The didn't get my money, simple math, no?

Oh, well if you didn't watch the show, then you are absolutely correct. But if you decided the price was too high or didn't like the fact that it was SD instead of HD and resorted to using torrents to give you what you want, then they didn't really lose out on your money because you were never a customer. That's almost like saying that Apple should sell their computers for $100 because I don't want to pay their prices, and if they don't sell me the computer for that price, I'll steal it.

No, I don't see where you're coming from at all. My simple suggestion is that they put their HD content up for rent and that they are losing money because they are not doing this.

Regarding stealing, to make money they have to provide product of sufficient quality at a competitive price. And it's true that their competition is HD quality for free via torrent, so they'd better get their butts in gear or they will continue to not earn the money that it out there for the taking.

I don't see torrents as competition because it is illegal. Is that any different than the student that chooses to photocopy his books rather than buy them? I mean, it's cheaper right? Who doesn't want to save some money?

P-Worm

sonictonic
Jun 29, 2008, 05:54 PM
You probably won't get very far making your request here.

You need to go here!
http://www.apple.com/feedback/appletv.html