Apple Pressuring TV Networks to Halve iTunes Episode Pricing?

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Apple's pricing for TV shows does not encourage someone currently downloading the episodes illegally to go legit.

There is NO solution anyone can come up with to compete with FREE via piracy. But if EVERYONE decided to take the piracy route, all production of all programming would cease, as there would be no business in making new shows, movies, and music.

It's too bad that people choose to justify piracy by claiming producers of content charge too much, stars make too much money, etc. I hope whatever business you are in never falls prey to your "customers" deciding they would rather STEAL from you, than pay you for your product or service.

Anecdotally, I often interact with college students, and a fair amount of them see little wrong with piracy. What's particularly funny though, is asking them what they want to do after they graduate. There's always a few pirates wanting to get jobs in the entertainment industries. A few I know graduated with those kinds of degrees and have since found no jobs in those industries (in spite of the fact that those industries are still doing OK even in these more challenging times). Wonder why?

 

[ctdonath]

Reality check: the Redbox movie vending machine down the block provides a good-sized pile of movies for $1/movie/day.

Against this, Apple provides TV episodes (overall lower quality content, half the runtime) for twice that price.

Speaking just for a customer sample of 1, at that price I'd rather get twice the content and twice the runtime for half the price. Indeed, Apple will get a whole lot more revenue if they cut the TV episodes price to $1 (which is still overall inferior content & runtime; try $0.50 and watch the revenue really roll in).

 

[guzhogi]

blu-ray quality is impossible at the moment. the united states broadband infrastructure has fallen so far behind the rest of the industrialized world even the better connected households couldn't support blu-ray quality. example: i get about 30Mbps down, roughly 5 times faster than most basic dsl packages, i average about 1.5MBps when downloading large files. if you take recent high quality release like "a bugs life" it has a an average bit rate of of 24MBps; it's 22GB in total size, so at 1.5MBps it would take a little over 4 hours to download, and that's for a relatively short movie, if you had something longer like transformers my download time would be nearly 8.5 hours. someone on a $30 a month dsl connection would have to wait 16.5 hours for a bug's life and 33 hours for transformers

Very true. While other parts of the world are much better in terms of infrastructure, I'm sure that Apple won't do anything unless the US gets it 1st. The infrastructure is one thing I hate about being an American.

've actually noticed the opposite, the daily show for example usually includes extended interview sections (though the stopped this recently)

I haven't downloaded the Daily Show, but in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, they totally got rid of the punk on the bus scene

tough to do for first run shows as they come out 24 hours after they air so the special features aren't available yet. it would also impact sales of dvds/blu-rays.

True. For the special features, they could come after all the episodes are done. For DVD sales, look at what computers did to typewriter sales, DVD/Blu-Ray did to VHS players, etc. Not saying optical media should leave, especially considering the quality difference between that & digital downloads, but it is a possibility.

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

1. I travel a lot, its simpler than a DVR and I don't have to deal with commercials.
2. Usually not much more than most would spend on cable between 50 and 75 a month. It really depends on how many new episodes are out.
3. To me the HD/SD combo is perfect the way it is. We could always use lower prices. And I wish that the networks where more consistent on getting the programs to Apple. Sometimes it can take days for new episodes to appear on iTunes.

You really should go with Netflix instead. $9/month for unlimited streaming of lots of stuff. Most TV shows that are on DVD are on Netflix for streaming now. If you want to watch the latest episodes Hulu should have you covered.

You'll also get all sorts of movies to watch and 1 DVD out at a time. The Netflix player works great on the computer (and ties to any netflix viewer you have on the TV quite well).

Buying TV content on ITMS really is a complete waste of money.

 

[diamond.g]

Apple's pricing for TV shows does not encourage someone currently downloading the episodes illegally to go legit.

$65 typical 22-episode season in High Definition (Canada iTunes)
$40 typical 22-episode season in standard Definition (Canada iTunes)

I'm still buying DVDs because the market hasn't offered a digital solution that is both affordable and works:
- My AppleTV (160 GB model) cannot hold all the shows I want to buy
- Purchasing via iTunes on my MacBook Pro and sharing my iTunes Library to the AppleTV is the only solution to the storage problem but its far less than ideal: making sure the MBP is turned on with iTunes running before I sit in front of my TV is the most obvious thing wrong with the current solution.

Perhaps the situation would improve if TV Shows and Movies purchased on the iTunes Store operated like Apps bought at the iTunes Store - if i delete an App I can reinstall it rather than having to keep a copy on other media as a backup. Maybe a subscription model would help with the storage problem.

Apple has been at the forefront of the movement from old media to digital media for more than five years; I'm guessing any workable solution is going to come from Apple. Their alleged efforts to cut the price of TV episodes in half is a good sign. If they are successful, I hope they change the hardware and service side of the equation to catch up with the copyright side of things.

I don't understand how Microsoft can offer that for their TV Shows, but Apple cannot.

 

[ctdonath]

There is NO solution anyone can come up with to compete with FREE via piracy.

Of course there is: delivery & packaging. (Never mind actual legality.)

Many people would rather shell out a few bucks for something that is delivered easily, cleanly, reliably, with attractive physical (or even digital) packaging ... rather than have to hunt for sources which provide unreliable content in often inconvenient/inconsistent/incomplete packaging.

"Just works" costs money.
"Free" costs time & resources.
Pick one.

And what works for you may not for others. I don't have time to screw around with configuring half-baked systems to process all-too-often brain-damaged content; for a small fee (say, $1/episode), the content I want will just show up reliably in good condition with a few consistent clicks AND ensure similar content will continue to come down the pipeline.

 

[ctdonath]

I don't understand how Microsoft can offer that for their TV Shows, but Apple cannot.

Methinks with the tablet, Apple will have to do exactly that. The device should be entirely & cleanly usable without having to tether to a PC and keep buying ever-larger local storage. Something else to expect tomorrow?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

This argument is only valid for the US, I've had 24mb/s broadband for about five years for about £30 per month, unlimited bandwidth allowance and streaming HD content from Vimeo looks great.

I can watch any BBC produced content on demand via iPlayer or stream Channel 4 (one of our better commercial channels) on demand through 4od which has non skip able advertising embedded in the video stream.

And we in the UK are about 10 years behind Japan and Korea in broadband infrastructure, this is one argument that playing to the lowest common denominator (the USA) is not what is the best model for comparison or best practice.

Sure I don't watch all of the content available on BBC but at least there is content available that does interest me on it and it is one of the things that we in the UK value as a national asset.

A bit like the National Health Service!

I appreciate your situation. But American companies- especially pseudo-monopolists like entrenched Cable giants, really like their revenues "as is". If something new threatens those revenues, they fight to keep things the same. After all, a "win" for consumers via lower prices for the same TV programming is covered by THEIR losses. They don't like to lose.

Just because your country has high-speed, unlimited and relatively cheap broadband doesn't mean we'll magically get the same deal, when, it is these very same companies that feed most of the broadband to American consumers. Should any competitor like Apple find a way to directly compete on price for TV programming distribution such that enough of the crowd decides to cut the Cable cord, those companies will make up the difference with higher broadband prices for "higher demand" customers. They won't take the revenue hit.

So congratulations on your situation. It would be great to get that kind of deal on this side of the pond. But it is also remarkably unlikely when the Goliaths also own the broadband pipes on which Apple's cable-tv bill-killing service would depend.

 

[agkm800]

I'm actually with Apple on this.

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

There is NO solution anyone can come up with to compete with FREE via piracy. But if EVERYONE decided to take the piracy route, all production of all programming would cease, as there would be no business in making new shows, movies, and music.

It's too bad that people choose to justify piracy by claiming producers of content charge too much, stars make too much money, etc. I hope whatever business you are in never falls prey to your "customers" deciding they would rather STEAL from you, than pay you for your product or service.

Piracy at this point isn't so much about cost as it is customer service. Most people want to pay for their content. These same people will be happy to pay a reasonable price for the content. There are 2 large problems right now though. 1) ITMS pricing is not reasonable at all and 2) Customer service sucks.

Let me expand on #2. Inglorious Basterds came out on DVD. I'm thinking if it's on DVD it should be available from an on-demand service. So, I check xbox live. They wouldn't let you rent it, only buy it. Here I am trying to pay to rent a movie and I can't. I don't want to buy it (especially in 480p wtf?) and it is out but I still can't rent it? That's called horrible customer service. When you make it harder for your customers to legally use your product in an effort to milk more money out of them you are going to push more and more customers to the piracy route, not because it's free, but because it's easier.

 

[JAT]

You should get out more, the world is a big interesting place.

What does that even mean in this context? Or do you just like paradoxes?

TV is the realm of couch potatoes, who don't "get out more". Yet, I can only assume that the context of this thread means you are recommending I "get out more" by watching more TV from other countries. Which is the opposite of actually "getting out", at all.

I probably already watch too much TV. Esp when a grand slam tennis tournament is live, like this week. Which, btw, is not from the USA.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Reality check: the Redbox movie vending machine down the block provides a good-sized pile of movies for $1/movie/day.

Against this, Apple provides TV episodes (overall lower quality content, half the runtime) for twice that price.

Speaking just for a customer sample of 1, at that price I'd rather get twice the content and twice the runtime for half the price. Indeed, Apple will get a whole lot more revenue if they cut the TV episodes price to $1 (which is still overall inferior content & runtime; try $0.50 and watch the revenue really roll in).

I agree with you. But note that the content producers don't like the Redbox arrangement either, as they feel they are losing too much money at $1/day. They're working on ways to weaken that kind of business.

The point is that these industries make a product that lots of people value and want to buy. I can appreciate that they want to be paid THEIR- not Apple's- price for what they want to sell. It shouldn't be Apple's call to price such content, as it's not Apple's content. I think many more companies would play ball with Apple if Apple allowed them flexibility to price their stuff as they see fit. Then, let us buyers decide if we want to pay for the ask price for each offering or not. If not, prices for that content would come down. And if so, everyone involved would feel they got a "win".

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Of course there is: delivery & packaging. (Never mind actual legality.)

Many people would rather shell out a few bucks for something that is delivered easily, cleanly, reliably, with attractive physical (or even digital) packaging ... rather than have to hunt for sources which provide unreliable content in often inconvenient/inconsistent/incomplete packaging.

"Just works" costs money.
"Free" costs time & resources.
Pick one.

And what works for you may not for others. I don't have time to screw around with configuring half-baked systems to process all-too-often brain-damaged content; for a small fee (say, $1/episode), the content I want will just show up reliably in good condition with a few consistent clicks AND ensure similar content will continue to come down the pipeline.

Many people... yes. Many (existing) pirates?

My post was aimed at the latter group.

 

[notjustjay]

I would pay $0.99 per episode to watch a TV show, and still buy the season box set later on DVD.

I don't see the two ideologies competing at all. The $0.99 you're paying to watch a TV show doesn't compete with the DVD box set, it competes with the $50/month people pay for cable or satellite TV services. Think of it as a convenience fee for being able to watch the show "now" (the day of/after broadcast) rather than wait months later for the DVD release.

Besides which, as others have said, you can watch episodes for free directly from the studio's streaming sites, or from sites like Hulu. I still buy the box set for the higher picture quality and the DVD extras.

At the very least there should be different pricing for 30-minute shows versus one-hour shows.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Piracy at this point isn't so much about cost as it is customer service. Most people want to pay for their content. These same people will be happy to pay a reasonable price for the content. There are 2 large problems right now though. 1) ITMS pricing is not reasonable at all and 2) Customer service sucks.

Let me expand on #2. Inglorious Basterds came out on DVD. I'm thinking if it's on DVD it should be available from an on-demand service. So, I check xbox live. They wouldn't let you rent it, only buy it. Here I am trying to pay to rent a movie and I can't. I don't want to buy it (especially in 480p wtf?) and it is out but I still can't rent it? That's called horrible customer service. When you make it harder for your customers to legally use your product in an effort to milk more money out of them you are going to push more and more customers to the piracy route, not because it's free, but because it's easier.

My post had NOTHING to do with arguing that pricing "as is" is right. I agree. Pricing in the iTunes store is too high. And it is STUPID that we can't rent or buy movies & shows at a price a bit lower than the same via physical distribution (DVD, etc) means. As a result, I've personally bought/rented a total of maybe $25 worth of video programming from iTunes in many years (and I own an TV). If the pricing there was better, the owners of that content would have made more money- perhaps much more- from me over that same time.

I posted in response to someone implying the justification of piracy, which should not be justifiable in practically any scenario. It is not "milking more money" out of customers when companies want to price their stuff at whatever price they want. The choice should be if you want it bad enough, PAY FOR IT. And if you think the price is too high, DON'T BUY IT. The third option- "that price is too high so I'LL STEAL IT" is WRONG.

If too many people agreed that it was OK (like the poster to which I replied, or #142 below)- even if it was only because it was "easier" (as you imply)- all the artists and companies that produce such stuff would eventually be reduced down to NOT producing it any more. And what a crappy world that would be in which to live.

 

[mrgreen4242]

I am with that part but that is also the reason why I will not buy TV shows off iTunes.

It only works on Apple TV (piece of crap), on a computer, and iPods.

I've always failed to see why people complain about this. Ya DRM sucks, but your DVDs will only work on a DVD player, and BD on a BD player. I suppose there's a small difference in single vendor vs multi vendor, thought he DRM is controlled by a single consortium, so it's a little academic.

Apple TV is crap and I refuse to buy one because it only plays stuff off iTunes and does not support open codexs like Xvid. Means the rather large amount of TV shows I do have that are encoded in Xvid are worthless to it.

First, the ATV is a fantastic little box. Everyone who's used mine loves it. You don't have one so I think it's unfair for you to say it sucks. Second, it will play video that you have encoded yourself into a compatible container, and in fact that container is probably better than most of the other "open options" in that it supports multiple soundtracks, surround sound, soft-subs, AND plays on current gen iPods - THE standard in PMPs. If you have to pick a container to use for video rips, you could do a lot worse than Apple's mov/mp4.

You happen to have a large library of some other format files, but I would venture to say that's hardly the norm. Personally, I would go through the hassle of reencoding them as they will work with an iPod that way, which is super handy. You can always mod the ATV to read them, as mentioned.

Now I know the 360 and I believe the PS3 on the other hand will play Xvid/Dvix codex. The next thing is they both can access drives over a network. On my computer I have shared a folder called TV. On my 360 I tell it to to a network drive and low and behold a folder called TV is there. From there I can move around and access all the TV shows saved to that hard drive and then play them off that. Those TV shows are encoded in Xvid. My current desktop will be retired to a file server when I replace it and I plan to rip my DVDs to it and let them be access by my 360 to play on my TV.

Apple does not do that and to top it off any TV shows/Movies bought from the iTunes movie store is limited to only apple products and the products that do work with TV are well pieces of crap so an automatic no go on both parts.

First, having a PS3 I can safely say that it sucks as a media player. The wifi card/antenna is completely worthless, and it is junk for trying to stream media too. I've had a 360 in the past and while better, it's still not nearly up to the ATV level. Aside from technical difficulties, the interface is just awful compared to the ATV.

Even if you can get it to stream your file over, you need some sort of media server to make it work (for the PS3 at least), and there's no official OSX solution for that. You have to rely on 3rd parties, both free/OSS and commercial.

I have no idea what you are claiming the ATV can't do. It sounds like you saying you can't rip your DVDs and stream them to your ATV? If that's so, you are completely, entirely wrong. I have over 400 DVDs ripped and streaming to my ATV, from a media server, which Apple kindly provides and updates software for free, running on OSX or Windows.

Honestly, your basic complaint with the ATV is that it doesn't play XVID files. Other than that, it is by far the best video streaming device I've used. You are basing all your negative opinion on the fact that you happen to have media files that it can't play, whereas I, as an equally valid counter example, have a huge media library it can play. Is it too bad that there is no good industry standard for this sort of thing? Yes, but lacking that good standard Apple has done a good job with making a container format that has a good feature set, and support a good baseline of those features on all their devices.

in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, they totally got rid of the punk on the bus scene

Wait, what?! That's crazy. It's one of the best scenes in the movie! Is this unique to the iTMS version or is it something with a regular/director cut editions on other media??

 

[djrobsd]

Well they have their choice. They can either get 99 cents from me or 0. I would pay $1 for a TV episode, but the current price of $2 for standard and $3 for HD is way too much for something I can either watch for free on the TV's web site (albeit for 4-5 30 second commercials thrown in)... Or download for FREE from bittorrents. All you have to do is google the name of a show such as:
modern family s01e12

and you will come up with a ton of links for downloading the program for free with all the commercials edited out.

So, TV studios take note, it's your choice, do you want consumers money or not? I'll pay $1 for the convenience of better quality, easy to copy to my iphone, etc, but $2-3 per show is unreal, especially when many of the full season DVD sets for TV shows are only $10-20 bucks right now in stores.

 

[Maserati7200]

I detect sarcasm there. But think about it, people typically play a sony multiple times. But how many times to people watch TV shows again? Not often. That is why people turn off the TV when it's a "rerun." So bang for the buck is still with the more expensive 2 min song that will get played hundreds of times vs. the 22 or 45 min show that is viewed once.

I guess I'm the minority, but I re - watch plenty of my TV shows. TBH, I only buy from iTunes if I wanted the episode now, like if I were about to go on vacation and wanted to put some new shows on my iPod. If I were to buy a whole season I'd buy a DVD or Blu Ray, or just pirate it (I only pirate top gear because i have no other options to watch top gear when it airs because i don't have BBC America)

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

My post had NOTHING to do with arguing that pricing "as is" is right. I agree. Pricing in the iTunes store is too high. And it is STUPID that we can't rent or buy movies & shows at a price a bit lower than the same via physical distribution (DVD, etc) means. As a result, I've personally bought/rented a total of maybe $25 worth of video programming from iTunes in many years (and I own an TV). If the pricing there was better, the owners of that content would have made more money- perhaps much more- from me over that same time.

I posted in response to someone implying the justification of piracy, which should not be justifiable in practically any scenario. It is not "milking more money" out of customers when companies want to price their stuff at whatever price they want. The choice should be if you want it bad enough, PAY FOR IT. And if you think the price is too high, DON'T BUY IT. The third option- "that price is too high so I'LL STEAL IT" is WRONG.

If too many people agreed that it was OK- even if it was only because it was "easier"- all the artists and companies that produce such stuff would eventually be reduced down to NOT producing it any more. And what a crappy world that would be in which to live.

We live in a digital, on-demand world now. The content producers need to accept that and embrace it instead of fighting it. People are willing and want to pay, but the content producers have to make it available. By trying to artificially segmenting the market the content producers are going to push people to pirate the content instead. I'm not defending piracy, only stating the facts of the situation.

The music industry has mostly realized this and now we have great online stores like ITMS and Amazon where you can find, pay, and download a song in 30 seconds or less. They have made it easy to do the right thing and based on RIAA, Apple, and Amazon profit numbers most people are doing the right thing. The movie industry should take note.

 

[mrgreen4242]

We live in a digital, on-demand world now. The content producers need to accept that and embrace it instead of fighting it. People are willing and want to pay, but the content producers have to make it available. By trying to artificially segmenting the market the content producers are going to push people to pirate the content instead. I'm not defending piracy, only stating the facts of the situation.

The music industry has mostly realized this and now we have great online stores like ITMS and Amazon where you can find, pay, and download a song in 30 seconds or less. They have made it easy to do the right thing and based on RIAA, Apple, and Amazon profit numbers most people are doing the right thing. The movie industry should take note.

I was talking to my wife about this last night. We have a 2-year old son, and no cable or satellite tv, and not even a tv antenna. We watch everything through our Apple TV (DVD rips, etc) and recently Netflix Instant Watch (via a PS3). We've been doing this (the ATV at least) since our son was born.

He watches some TV - loves Pixar movies, Blue's Clues, and Elmo's World. He is growing up in a world where he can watch whatever he wants, whenever he wants, with no commercials. He's simply not going to be interested in watching TV like we did growing up; it would be a huge step backwards.

Content producers have about 5 years to get it right. Our generation will deal with a mishmash of the old way and new way for awhile, but once the generation of kids who are, say, 5 or 6 right now start to become old enough to have input into buying decisions it's over for anyone not giving viewers what they want, when they want it, and at a price they are willing to pay.

 

[ncbill]

Already there are TV shows available on iTunes that are not available on Amazon's Unbox (I use the latter with my Tivo)

If Apple drops the price per show the iTunes option becomes more attractive.

It would be even more attractive if Apple would sell a cable connecting DisplayPort to HDMI that carries BOTH video and audio.

Otherwise I'm thinking Dell Zino for future HDTV viewing.

 

[NeuralControl]

If the studios catch on, this will be a great step in the right direction. I've never bought any TV shows off iTunes, but I will be more inclined to if they are under $1.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

We live in a digital, on-demand world now. The content producers need to accept that and embrace it instead of fighting it. People are willing and want to pay, but the content producers have to make it available. By trying to artificially segmenting the market the content producers are going to push people to pirate the content instead. I'm not defending piracy, only stating the facts of the situation.

The music industry has mostly realized this and now we have great online stores like ITMS and Amazon where you can find, pay, and download a song in 30 seconds or less. They have made it easy to do the right thing and based on RIAA, Apple, and Amazon profit numbers most people are doing the right thing. The movie industry should take note.

The movie industry is generally making their content available on those exact same (sources of music) sites & stores. You can also get them (legally) from plenty of other website and webstores that doesn't sell music. While, again, I agree that their pricing on iTunes is poor, there is no piracy justification in how hard it is to legally acquire a movie or TV show... they're out there.

The argument that you've chosen to join is almost entirely based on not liking the price these companies want for legal versions of the content... so, "I'll steal it" instead. Again, take a read of one like #142. He's basically saying, if you price YOUR product too high (for my taste), I'll just steal it instead.

I agree the video industry is later to the party, but that's mostly because iTunes started as iTunes- a legal music distribution store. Until about the 5th generation of iPods, there was no very good way for the video side to really play ball via iTunes. As such, the music industry has had more time to get used to the situation, swallow their medicine and try to make the most of it. BUT, all that trailblazing has helped the video industry come on strong.

iTunes and similar (legal) sources are fairly loaded with popular video content right now. The "problem" is that segments of buyers don't want to pay the asking price. Nothing wrong with that. By not paying, it pressures the owners of such media to lower prices in search of the right price. However, STEALING such media accomplishes nothing in this battle. A guy like #142 is going to STEAL it for FREE because FREE may still beat "too much" even if it is legally available at 99 cents.

I completely agree that there is still plenty of opportunity for the video industry to find the right (lower) price on iTunes, and that they have plenty of opportunity to put a much bigger selection of (missing) content on there as well. I completely disagree any time someone decides piracy is a justifiable alternative. The industry would fold if enough people joined the pirates... and then we would all lose.

 

[Lancelot9201]

TV Exec's know nothing about implementing a marketable business model

Boy was the posting of this article ever timely, I just found myself searching on itunes for a tv show only to find that it was way to expensive, which unfortunately forced me to download it via a torrent site.

I refuse to pay $1.99 or $2.99 for a single episode that as far as I'm concerned is found money for the tv industry anyway.

This is just another example of why piracy isn't going away. As long as the Tv exec's, who stupidly refuse to implement a marketable business model, continue to overprice their products people will continue to turn to piracy.

I do congratulate Apple though for attempting to price a product in line with its true market value.

Having met & worked with many of the Tv exec's I'm concerned that Apple won't get through to them. These idiots are more concerned with where their bonus & new Porsche is coming from than pricing their produces fairly.

 

[jerome65]

That's just ridiculous. You pay .99 for a SONG. A TV episode costs about 20 times more to produce than 1 song.

I'm all for lowering the prices as hollywood actors, writers and directors make FAR too much for their value (which is the REAL cause of high tv and movie prices)...

But this is just dumb...

Yes, but their initial revenue stream from a TV show is the commercial broadcast. After that they have additional revenue from commercial free downloads, DVD sales, and syndication that are not in the music industry.