Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Apple TV and Home Theater

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Sep 19, 2012, 12:24 PM   #26
Rigby
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdhurst View Post
Even if a super-popular show was supported entirely by $35/season downloads, it wouldn't be enough to cover the cost of producing it.
I don't think this is true at all. Average ad revenue per viewer hour on the most profitable network TV shows (like e.g. American Idol) is around 70 cents (it's less for most dramas). On iTunes, we usually pay $2-3 per episode ...
Quote:
Network shows can't currently exist without some kind of advertising. The market that purchases content online do not, as of this time, completely cover the cost of production.
Of course not, because relatively few people buy TV shows on services like iTunes. But that does not mean that iTunes (or DVD/Blu-ray) buyers should still have to sit through the same commercials as broadcast viewers. I can understand this logic when you are talking about cheap services like Hulu+, but not when you are already paying premium prices for the content.
Rigby is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2012, 12:44 PM   #27
kokako
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
chill out life's short.
Content is provided to iTunes by FX blame them or press fforward and those 23 seconds that got you so angry will be over in 2 seconds.
kokako is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2012, 12:44 PM   #28
tdhurst
macrumors 68040
 
tdhurst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Send a message via AIM to tdhurst Send a message via Yahoo to tdhurst Send a message via Skype™ to tdhurst
Okay...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigby View Post
I don't think this is true at all. Average ad revenue per viewer hour on the most profitable network TV shows (like e.g. American Idol) is around 70 cents (it's less for most dramas). On iTunes, we usually pay $2-3 per episode ...
Of course not, because relatively few people buy TV shows on services like iTunes. But that does not mean that iTunes (or DVD/Blu-ray) buyers should still have to sit through the same commercials as broadcast viewers. I can understand this logic when you are talking about cheap services like Hulu+, but not when you are already paying premium prices for the content.
Feel free to find someone working in a TV production studio and ask them.

Im still willing to watch a 23 second pre-roll add for a 22-45 minutes tv show.
__________________
Twitter - tdhurst
I blog here.
2013 13" rMBP i5, 2.4 c2d Mac Mini, iPhone 5, Apple TV 3.
tdhurst is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2012, 02:50 PM   #29
BJMRamage
macrumors 68000
 
BJMRamage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokako View Post
chill out life's short.
Content is provided to iTunes by FX blame them or press fforward and those 23 seconds that got you so angry will be over in 2 seconds.
This.

I was thinking the same thing. had it been an ad for something else (Old Spice/Bud Light/Mercedes/etc) it would be different. but having an FX "commercial" on an FX show is not so awful. more like a "trailer" but yes, if this continues and then more and more ads are thrown in the mix and then it goes to more material things, that will suck.
BJMRamage is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2012, 03:06 PM   #30
marzer
macrumors 65816
 
marzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Colorado
First-World problems = Lead-in commercials = Furious

There are still many places in the world where the nature of surviving dictates that such matters be appropriately prioritized. In societies where leisure time has become excessive, some people have lost the ability to constructively direct their energies.
marzer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2012, 03:18 PM   #31
afd
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scotland
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokako View Post
chill out life's short.
Content is provided to iTunes by FX blame them or press fforward and those 23 seconds that got you so angry will be over in 2 seconds.
I'm siding with OP. Life's too short to have to watch adverts. If the tv series I buy from iTunes have adverts in the future I'll stop buying them.
Video content from iTunes in general is more expensive than optical media and the fact that there is no adverts is one of the things that convinces me to pay more,
afd is offline   10 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2012, 03:51 PM   #32
mic j
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by BJMRamage View Post
This.

I was thinking the same thing. had it been an ad for something else (Old Spice/Bud Light/Mercedes/etc) it would be different. but having an FX "commercial" on an FX show is not so awful. more like a "trailer" but yes, if this continues and then more and more ads are thrown in the mix and then it goes to more material things, that will suck.
I avoid ads as much as possible (trim out, skip on DVR, FF...). Tired of being sold something all the time. And...if they find out we are tolerant of it, they will increase it. Slippery slope.
__________________
17" MBP '09, 2.66 GHz, 8GB RAM; 13" MBP (Retina) '12, 2.5GHz, 8GB RAM; iPad 2, 32GB; AE; TV 3; AEBS w 1TB Seagate HDD; 65" Mits DLP, Sony STR-DB1070 AVR
mic j is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2012, 06:12 PM   #33
bryan85
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Angry

There is such a double standard when it comes to entertainment consumption, it's extremely irritating. The average person wont pay 99 cents for an app they can get for free. If they do pay for it for whatever reason and it were to have advertisements, that person would be annoyed enough to give the entire app a one star review and say its not worth their time.

This same person fully expects all music purchased anywhere, on any type of media, to be free of advertisements. If there were advertisements on music that had been purchased, again this person would be in an uproar.

All this said, when it comes down to movies and TV shows, advertisements seem to be okay with most people because this is the norm. Why is this okay? Why would someone pay $1 for an app, $15 for a CD and demand no advertisements, yet pay $20-$50 for a movie/TV show and be perfectly content with watching mindless banter?

All of these are forms of entertainment. All of them take you to your "happy place" and allow you to escape reality for certain amount of time. There is no difference. People have allowed themselves to be brainwashed into thinking its okay.
__________________
27" iMac, 3.4GHz i7, 32GB RAM, 680MX 2GB, 768GB SSD (Late 2012) | ATV 3 | iPad 3 64GB | iPhone 5C 32GB T-Mobile
bryan85 is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2012, 06:26 AM   #34
slothrob
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
If you skip ahead by 1 chapter, does it skip the commercial (and just the commercial)?
slothrob is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2012, 06:38 AM   #35
sim667
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
It was an ad for the network..... I dont really see a problem with that tbh.

I ntoiced on 4od in the UK now, when you watch a program it has ads just like you're watching it on tele now.

God bless the BBC however, no ads
__________________
Mac Pro, Macbook Pro, G4 Powerbook, iPad 4, iPhone 5, 2X TV, Nikon D800, ACSP Trained - Photography and Mac tech
Music and UK festival Blog
sim667 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2012, 08:40 AM   #36
bigjnyc
macrumors 68040
 
bigjnyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Jeez if you get so furious over something so silly, I wonder how you react when something really bad happens to you. 23 seconds of commercial and you sound like you're ready to kill someone over it.
__________________
Whenever I go to delete an app on my iPhone, I like to pretend the shaking icons are all screaming loudly in panic over who's getting axed
bigjnyc is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2012, 09:15 AM   #37
CylonGlitch
macrumors 68030
 
CylonGlitch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SoCal
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan85 View Post
I understand the point, but also understand that Apple has set a precedent with no advertisements in their content. This is a huge deal to some, a major selling point. They are now allowing content providers to include advertisement in the content. This is a big shift in Apple's policy(set by precedent), and they did so without warning the consumer.
*** NOTE THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH APPLE.

Apple does not create the content, it does not approve of what's there, it does not inject the ads. It just serves up the content. I'm sure if you read the licensing agreement it doesn't say that all content is 100% free of ads. But I'm am sure that it says that the studios are responsible for the content.

Please, focus your rage in the right direction.

I agree with you 100%, I'd be pissed. I'd be pissed enough to call Apple, explain to them the problem, and that you demand a refund because this is not clearly stated in the description of the show. Do NOT pay for what you don't want; otherwise more studios will get on board with this. If you don't do this, then you're kowtowing and have no legs to stand on, no right to complain.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan85 View Post
There is such a double standard when it comes to entertainment consumption, it's extremely irritating. The average person wont pay 99 cents for an app they can get for free. If they do pay for it for whatever reason and it were to have advertisements, that person would be annoyed enough to give the entire app a one star review and say its not worth their time.
I agree with you here. I hate buying an app (game) and then they use in-game purchases to get more money from you. Screw that, if any app I am looking to buy has anything in the "Top In-App" purchases column in iTunes, I don't buy it. Period.

If iTunes implements a flag that says, "Ad-Sponsored" or something like that, then at least you have the information before you buy it. But in the end, even that flag would have to be setup by the Studio.
__________________
Last edited by CylonGlitch : Tomorrow at 37:05 AM.
MRoogle
CylonGlitch is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2012, 12:16 PM   #38
Capt Crunch
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cleveland, OH
Send a message via AIM to Capt Crunch
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigby View Post
I don't think this is true at all. Average ad revenue per viewer hour on the most profitable network TV shows (like e.g. American Idol) is around 70 cents (it's less for most dramas). On iTunes, we usually pay $2-3 per episode ...
You're not taking into account volume. Tons of people are willing to watch a show for free with advertising. Not many are willing to pay $2-3 for one. You need a minimum amount of revenue to cover your costs.

Now here is the thing, if you go to a pay-per-view model, it's really difficult to have cheap shows subsidize expensive shows. You buy HBO because of the Sopranos, but the only reason it's worth it is because you get 24/7 content.

Let's suppose HBO sells an episode of their latest drama online, and that's the only way to see it. Then, plot volume as a function of price. As price goes down, volume goes up, but the problem is, for expensive shows, at no price is the revenue higher than the fixed cost to make the show in the first place. Enter reality TV to make up the difference.

Basically when you pay $50 a month for HBO/whatever, $40 goes to cover good shows and $10 goes to the crap filler. The problem is, no one will pay $40 to just have the good shows, which, time-wise, is a small fraction of the total content.

That's why execs are so scared to jump into the iTunes model. The fact of the matter is, not many people are actually willing to pay for good (expensive) content, and they are not willing to pay for cheap crap content either. They will only pay for both. I don't have data to back this up, but I would bet real money that if HBO split their $50 charge between a $40 good content and $10 crap content and sold them separately, sales would plummet.
__________________
His: 13" MBA i5 | iPhone 5S
Hers: 13" MBA C2D | iPhone 4G
HTPC: Unibody MacMini | Drobo S (6TB) | Plex is the shizzle for rizzle

Last edited by Capt Crunch; Sep 20, 2012 at 12:28 PM.
Capt Crunch is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2012, 02:33 PM   #39
Rigby
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Crunch View Post
You're not taking into account volume. Tons of people are willing to watch a show for free with advertising. Not many are willing to pay $2-3 for one. You need a minimum amount of revenue to cover your costs.
I never said that the studios should switch entirely to the pay-per-use model. It's not an either/or question. The point is that, if I opt to buy TV shows on iTunes (or DVD/Bluray, for that matter) rather than watching them on an ad-infested TV network, I more than make up for the loss of ad revenue through the higher price. The studios are of course free to continue bombarding the broadcast viewers with ads, but I effectively pay to get rid of them. There is no reason why I should pay a premium price *and* have to sit through ads. If they now start sneaking them back in, I will go elsewhere.
Rigby is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2012, 03:07 PM   #40
saotomefirst
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Crunch View Post
You're not taking into account volume. Tons of people are willing to watch a show for free with advertising. Not many are willing to pay $2-3 for one. You need a minimum amount of revenue to cover your costs.
Sorry man, weak arguments... I agree with you, tons of ppl - myself included - would happily watch tv shows, buy apps, etc, for free with ads. Also, not many ppl are willing to pay to watch, and this breaks the balance.

However, when we pay for something we have an expectation to get a better thing than we would get if we hadn't. I see no point in paying to watch ads - I'd feel ok if there was an option to pay less to see the ads, but from what the OP reported, there's not even an indication on that - and thus making him think he payed the 'full price' on the show.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Crunch View Post
Now here is the thing, if you go to a pay-per-view model, it's really difficult to have cheap shows subsidize expensive shows. You buy HBO because of the Sopranos, but the only reason it's worth it is because you get 24/7 content.

...

Basically when you pay $50 a month for HBO/whatever, $40 goes to cover good shows and $10 goes to the crap filler. The problem is, no one will pay $40 to just have the good shows, which, time-wise, is a small fraction of the total content.
Indeed, and that's EXACTLY the point in paying for your a specific show. The great problem with payed TV is that everyone is paying for both cool stuff and crappy fillers. That's how they make their money, and I'm surprised no one even tried to sue them for forcing you to buy what you don't want just so you can get that 1 program you really want to see.

This is the same strategy the Music Industry used - and relied upon - until roughly 10 years ago. They would force you to buy a CD with 1 great song on it, 2-3 ok or better songs and a mass of crappy stuff just to fill the rest of the disc, and we all had to spend $10~$20 to buy the whole package just to get what we wanted.

Then Apple introduced the idea of selling each music for a set price instead of forcing the buyers to get everything. What happened? Their world went upside down. Now we still spend $10~$20, but we pay only for the cool stuff, and this didn't break the Music Industry - just their 'successful' model of tricking us to pay more for less. If you'd care to take a look, the overall quality of songs and video clips have since then improved, so they could adapt to this new reality, and we are all pretty happy with it - but they are not, of course.

The same applies to the TV and Movies Industry. This excuse that a good show/movie needs ads and fillers to survive is to justify making us pay when the ads owner already did so. This strategy has been working well in the TV world, but it doesn't make any sense in here. If they say that they need this extra cash, they should let us opt by releasing 2 versions of their stuff - one more expensive, ad free, and another cheaper (or free), with ads. But ofc they won't do this, because they know what will happen: ppl who can afford (and that is usually the main targets of ad campaigns) will prefer to skip the ads and pay more, while the poorer one may get the ads version (if they can't find an alternative!), forcing them to reinvent themselves like the Music Industry a decade ago so they could keep selling.

This is the reason they want to push ads into digital content: so that things go back to where they were in the past. It's just like of, for some reason, a new album in iTunes from some famous group suddenly had to be purchased as a whole, instead of letting you pick the one music you want, because the seller states he needs more money for his bills. This won't happen because Apple won't allow, and the same thing should happen with the movies/tv shows. We pay way to much to watch ads - and if I have to watch ads anyway, I'd rather buy the DVD and rip it myself so I get just what I want.
saotomefirst is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2012, 06:01 AM   #41
Capt Crunch
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cleveland, OH
Send a message via AIM to Capt Crunch
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigby View Post
I never said that the studios should switch entirely to the pay-per-use model. It's not an either/or question. The point is that, if I opt to buy TV shows on iTunes (or DVD/Bluray, for that matter) rather than watching them on an ad-infested TV network, I more than make up for the loss of ad revenue through the higher price. The studios are of course free to continue bombarding the broadcast viewers with ads, but I effectively pay to get rid of them. There is no reason why I should pay a premium price *and* have to sit through ads. If they now start sneaking them back in, I will go elsewhere.
You should go elsewhere. I would not want ads in stuff that I paid for too. I'm not saying that what the content providers are doing is right, I'm just trying to explain why they are doing what they are doing. If they offer pay-per-view, then people like you will buy it. What they are worried about is that EVERYONE will go buy it. The problem is, the trade between ad-supported and pay-per-view is not 1-1. For every person that buys a pay-per-view show, 3 (and I'm making this up, but the spirit is true) stop watching the ad stuff. Yes, I'm saying people will watch less TV if given a pay-per-view pricing scheme.

It goes back to my HBO example. The main reason people buy HBO is because $50 is a reasonable price for good shows and cheap filler. $40 for good shows and $10 for cheap filler are not good prices for the consumers. Ultimately, consumers will buy less when offered more choice. I'll compare to the music industry below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saotomefirst View Post
Sorry man, weak arguments... I agree with you, tons of ppl - myself included - would happily watch tv shows, buy apps, etc, for free with ads. Also, not many ppl are willing to pay to watch, and this breaks the balance.

However, when we pay for something we have an expectation to get a better thing than we would get if we hadn't. I see no point in paying to watch ads - I'd feel ok if there was an option to pay less to see the ads, but from what the OP reported, there's not even an indication on that - and thus making him think he payed the 'full price' on the show.

Indeed, and that's EXACTLY the point in paying for your a specific show. The great problem with payed TV is that everyone is paying for both cool stuff and crappy fillers. That's how they make their money, and I'm surprised no one even tried to sue them for forcing you to buy what you don't want just so you can get that 1 program you really want to see.

This is the same strategy the Music Industry used - and relied upon - until roughly 10 years ago. They would force you to buy a CD with 1 great song on it, 2-3 ok or better songs and a mass of crappy stuff just to fill the rest of the disc, and we all had to spend $10~$20 to buy the whole package just to get what we wanted.
I completely agree with your music analogy.

Quote:
Then Apple introduced the idea of selling each music for a set price instead of forcing the buyers to get everything. What happened? Their world went upside down. Now we still spend $10~$20, but we pay only for the cool stuff, and this didn't break the Music Industry - just their 'successful' model of tricking us to pay more for less. If you'd care to take a look, the overall quality of songs and video clips have since then improved, so they could adapt to this new reality, and we are all pretty happy with it - but they are not, of course.

The same applies to the TV and Movies Industry. This excuse that a good show/movie needs ads and fillers to survive is to justify making us pay when the ads owner already did so. This strategy has been working well in the TV world, but it doesn't make any sense in here. If they say that they need this extra cash, they should let us opt by releasing 2 versions of their stuff - one more expensive, ad free, and another cheaper (or free), with ads. But ofc they won't do this, because they know what will happen: ppl who can afford (and that is usually the main targets of ad campaigns) will prefer to skip the ads and pay more, while the poorer one may get the ads version (if they can't find an alternative!), forcing them to reinvent themselves like the Music Industry a decade ago so they could keep selling.

This is the reason they want to push ads into digital content: so that things go back to where they were in the past. It's just like of, for some reason, a new album in iTunes from some famous group suddenly had to be purchased as a whole, instead of letting you pick the one music you want, because the seller states he needs more money for his bills. This won't happen because Apple won't allow, and the same thing should happen with the movies/tv shows. We pay way to much to watch ads - and if I have to watch ads anyway, I'd rather buy the DVD and rip it myself so I get just what I want.
And you know what happened to the music industry since the invention of the single? Revenues dropped like a stone. What you're saying, and I agree with you, is that because of digital delivery, the value of music to consumers has dropped. It's clear why the tv industry is fighting tooth and nail to get away from pay per view. Just like the music industry, consumers will only want to pay for the good stuff (i.e. singles) and they can't rely on filler to make up the lost revenue.

The problem I have with that is the problem that I see in pop music. Now, everyone is trying to make good singles rather than good albums. I'm not a music snob, but there has been a convergence in musical style for pop music. Producers make singles that they know they can sell, because they can no longer rely on album sales. So, instead of 1 single subsidizing an entire album, allowing for variety and experimentation, artists are pushed to make 10 singles, homogenizing their music.

I imagine the same will happen for TV. Without reality crap shows to make up the revenue, producers will resort to making all their TV shows appeal to the widest audience possible so they can keep their revenues high. Then, every single show will become like a pop single, like Glee or something, and we will see less and less of the more stimulating, but less profitable, shows.
__________________
His: 13" MBA i5 | iPhone 5S
Hers: 13" MBA C2D | iPhone 4G
HTPC: Unibody MacMini | Drobo S (6TB) | Plex is the shizzle for rizzle
Capt Crunch is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2012, 09:39 AM   #42
Nightarchaon
macrumors 65816
 
Nightarchaon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Adverts, its why the Pirate Bay exists.
__________________
iWatch in action http://media.joe.ie/wp-content/uploa...ael-Knight.jpg
MacBook Pro/iPad Mini/TV1/iMac/iPhone5
Nightarchaon is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2012, 11:51 AM   #43
jaw04005
macrumors 601
 
jaw04005's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: AR
One Fox show I watched a few years ago did the same thing except it also added the "house ad" to the credits in a box just like they do on TV.

Very annoying.
jaw04005 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2012, 11:59 AM   #44
saotomefirst
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Rio de Janeiro
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Crunch View Post
You should go elsewhere. I would not want ads in stuff that I paid for too. I'm not saying that what the content providers are doing is right, I'm just trying to explain why they are doing what they are doing. If they offer pay-per-view, then people like you will buy it. What they are worried about is that EVERYONE will go buy it. The problem is, the trade between ad-supported and pay-per-view is not 1-1. For every person that buys a pay-per-view show, 3 (and I'm making this up, but the spirit is true) stop watching the ad stuff. Yes, I'm saying people will watch less TV if given a pay-per-view pricing scheme.

It goes back to my HBO example. The main reason people buy HBO is because $50 is a reasonable price for good shows and cheap filler. $40 for good shows and $10 for cheap filler are not good prices for the consumers. Ultimately, consumers will buy less when offered more choice. I'll compare to the music industry below.
I can't speak for everyone but the only reason I pay that much for HBO is because there is no other option for me to see the shows I want - and I'm still forced to submit to ad bombardment ranging from 'new' food and drink products ( anti diet propaganda) to medical assistance for erection problems ( like I need it...), and yes one right after the other ...). Plus, I'm paying for a bunch of other stuff I don't really even bother watching - religious, ancient movies, documentaries, etc... I guess I wouldn't mind paying $60+ if I could have access to my favorite shows alone - no ads ofc! - and eventually I'd buy something different, like some cool $10~$20documentary.

I do understand your point of view. More pay-per-views with no ads = much less TV shows with ads = much less revenue. While this may seem a catastrophic scenario for revenue, it can be easily counter weighted by increasing the price on the pay-per-views - which would add more revenue per rent/sell AND preserve the TV audience, as less people would have access to pay-per-view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Crunch View Post
And you know what happened to the music industry since the invention of the single? Revenues dropped like a stone. What you're saying, and I agree with you, is that because of digital delivery, the value of music to consumers has dropped. It's clear why the tv industry is fighting tooth and nail to get away from pay per view. Just like the music industry, consumers will only want to pay for the good stuff (i.e. singles) and they can't rely on filler to make up the lost revenue.
I agree with your point, but this problem with the Music Industry revenue was caused ultimately by them. Like I said, they lived in a world where 15 songs were worth $10 as a whole. When they broke that into individual prices for each music, instead of realizing what everyone knows - that everyone just wants that 1 great song - and pricing it accordingly, they wanted to show everyone that all the musics on the album were equally important, thus setting all their prices at $0.99 (to make you get to the brilliant conclusion that it's much cheaper to buy the whole album for $10).

This would have worked... in Music plane, where everyone understands that a music is much not important unless when inserted into a context. Their weakness relies on the fact that this is Earth, and their buyers aren't music specialists, but people who identify with the music they are hearing. Now, every person makes a different connection between that one music and themselves, and not necessarily that connection matches the other musics that were packed in the album - explaining why everyone thinks they are 'crappy'.

This way, when you set all musics at $0.99, the public refuses to buy the 'crappy'songs because they cost exactly the same as any 'great' song. It's pretty much like the iPhone in the smartphone market. If all those Android phones were just as expensive as an iPhone, who would buy them? That's why they are cheaper, so people at least start considering buying them. The same way, people would rather save their $10 for 10 great $0.99 hits, instead of buying 1 album full of stuff they don't like/understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Crunch View Post
The problem I have with that is the problem that I see in pop music. Now, everyone is trying to make good singles rather than good albums. I'm not a music snob, but there has been a convergence in musical style for pop music. Producers make singles that they know they can sell, because they can no longer rely on album sales. So, instead of 1 single subsidizing an entire album, allowing for variety and experimentation, artists are pushed to make 10 singles, homogenizing their music.

I imagine the same will happen for TV. Without reality crap shows to make up the revenue, producers will resort to making all their TV shows appeal to the widest audience possible so they can keep their revenues high. Then, every single show will become like a pop single, like Glee or something, and we will see less and less of the more stimulating, but less profitable, shows.
Indeed. This will happen, but only if the Music Industry example is followed to the letter. Simple adjustments to that model can both prevent this catastrophic scenario from happening and make all consumers happy.

For example, since no one will launch a show on the web as their first appearance, you can estimate each show's standalone value prior to launching it. Increase the price to protect the TV market share (so ppl who want too many programs will keep their cable packs) and to compensate for the lost ad revenue (or not, if they intent to keep ads on online shows, so long as they WARN AUDIENCE 1ST that they are paying to watch ads, and in this case they should have another, more expensive version of this show, ads free).

In this scenario, you can still have less profitable/experimental shows being supported by both ads and big shows/movies on the TV and increased revenue from selling popular shows/movies on the web, supported or not by ads.

From what I can see many companies have already realized this - this is why iTunes is so full with movies/series. In fact, there is nothing to fear, so long as you know how to price your stuff on the web, so your other channels don't become unprofitable. Also, there has been no need for ads on web content until now. But if the companies want more revenue for their content, I'd say they either rise their prices or give customers the choice between expensive content and no ads or cheap with ads content.

... ok I speak too much... Thx every1 who managed to get to the end of this small book for your time :-P
saotomefirst is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2012, 01:21 PM   #45
charliex5
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan85 View Post
I just downloaded season 5 episode 2 of Sons of Anarchy to find the first 23 seconds of the episode is an advertisement! I am ****in livid! This is ********!!! I ****in payed full price for a season pass and now I am being forced to watch advertisements. I am so furious right now that I cant even enjoy the show that I just downloaded. I feel as thought a serious amount of trust has been broken here. Im in so much disbelief right now. I will never buy content from iTunes again.
It doesn't help that this season has been pretty bad so far.
charliex5 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2012, 01:37 PM   #46
klover
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
alternative: torrent
klover is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2012, 01:41 PM   #47
Mr. McMac
macrumors 68020
 
Mr. McMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Long Island, New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by klover View Post
alternative: torrent
yep
__________________
Mid 2011 Mac Mini, 2.3 GHz, 8GB of RAM, 500 GB HD, 2 TB external HD, 46" Samsung Display, 4th gen iPod Shuffle
Custom built Windows 7 PC, Asus ChromeBox, 2nd gen Nexus 7, (2) Roku 3's
Mr. McMac is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2012, 01:45 PM   #48
charliex5
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by klover View Post
alternative: torrent
ugh.
charliex5 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2012, 03:22 PM   #49
bryan85
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Thumbs up

I sent an email to Tim Cook explaining the situation and expressing my disappointment. I got a call back this morning from a representative with the iTunes team who let me know that the commercial has been removed from this episode. I'm very pleased with the outcome. Thank you Apple!
__________________
27" iMac, 3.4GHz i7, 32GB RAM, 680MX 2GB, 768GB SSD (Late 2012) | ATV 3 | iPad 3 64GB | iPhone 5C 32GB T-Mobile
bryan85 is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2012, 03:28 PM   #50
Michael CM1
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan85 View Post
I sent an email to Tim Cook explaining the situation and expressing my disappointment. I got a call back this morning from a representative with the iTunes team who let me know that the commercial has been removed from this episode. I'm very pleased with the outcome. Thank you Apple!
That's awesome.

I think the main issue is if you have bought any video from iTunes, there hasn't been a scent of ads. So someone putting ads onto video is something completely new. That's one of the advantages of iTunes video over DVD and BD. I can't stand buying a disc and getting forced to figure out which combination of buttons I have to push to get past all that crap. If it was just something to watch the first time, that's one thing. But it's EVERY TIME. I've got BDs from five years ago telling me about how awesome that new BD format is. The only improvement I have noticed is BD-Live will put different ads up. A slight improvement.
__________________
13.3" 2014 MacBook Air; Mid-2010 21.5" iMac; silver iPhone 5S 32GB (silver 64GB iPhone 6 coming soon!); white iPad Air 32 GB; third-gen TV (x2)
Michael CM1 is offline   3 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Apple TV and Home Theater

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iTunes not syncing content to device Aangair iOS 7 2 Jul 10, 2013 05:10 PM
Streaming Content without iTunes Damien Sue Apple TV and Home Theater 5 May 6, 2013 01:16 PM
Content not appearing under iTunes U Jessica Lares Mac Applications and Mac App Store 1 Feb 15, 2013 12:01 AM
Trouble watching iTunes content Karenl39 Apple TV and Home Theater 1 Oct 21, 2012 07:52 AM
Streaming iTunes Content Ronin64 iPod touch 1 Aug 9, 2012 07:08 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:09 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC