Apple Partnering with Inline Video Ad Company?

[reallynotnick]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[Virgil-TB2]

... 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]

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

 

[SeaFox]

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 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!]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

Mixed feelings

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!

 

[Virgil-TB2]

... 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]

"just get outa here john! theres no such thing as a free lunch!"

 

[nimbuscloud]

This partnership is going to make a LOT of sense in January...