Apple Targeting $0.99 TV Show Rentals As It Moves iTunes to the Cloud

[chwhale]

I personally feel that any kind of payment per episode model will fail. Who wants to pay upwards of $25 for one season of a show? If you rent those episodes, you can never go back and watch them again for free.

Hulu and Netflix grant you all-you-can-eat access for one flat rate. This is what the cable companies have done and have been successful too.

Until Apple creates a subscription plan for ALL tv shows, count me out.

 

[SpaceKitty]

I personally feel that any kind of payment per episode model will fail. Who wants to pay upwards of $25 for one season of a show?

Actually, lots of people do. The only time I won't buy a season pass is when they are $59 such as 24. I waited till the season was over and bought it at $39. I cancelled my DirecTv so iTunes is how I do my TV viewing.

A few times I will just buy each episode as they come out. It's easier to afford this way then paying for a season pass plus I always buy the HD version. The last season of the Office was a time when I did this.

 

[McGiord]

I dont like this at all.
Why pay or something that use to be free, with some ads.
Renting is stupid and highly expensive. If I pay I want to see it as many times as I want.
I do prefer Netflix's model for streaming, a very reasonable fee that includes DVD discs and Bluray.
.99 without closed caption is still expensive for buying the episodes.
Apple is forcing their rules to suck money out of your pocket...
The $40 per month fee to stream and download all what you want and being able to put that content in any apple device sounds better, so while you are still paying you can keep it, and after one year you can own the content forever by jut paying an extra fee, or by upgrading to a new apple device that qualifies.

 

[JediZenMaster]

Paying .99 vs. free on abc.com., cbs.com, fox.com, hulu.com, history.com, southparkstudios.com, etc

Get your head out of Apple's ass.

Rupert Murdoch has already stated that eventually fox.com will be behind a paywall eventually. Abc.com will also begin charging for some content as well. So the whole idea of free is starting to go away as it should because there is no such thing as a free lunch

 

[stickyd8]

Huh

will it have the depth of content of hulu or netflix? If not, then count me out. It isn't about whether it's an Apple product, it's about the content.

I can't understand why they just don't partner with these other services.

Are you on crack? iTunes has more TV content on it now than Hulu and Netflix. Netflix doesn't have any current TV shows and Hulu's are commercial based. I'd gladly pay $.99 for each show I wanted to watch. There are probably 10 to 15 shows I watch. If those 15 shows came on once a week, that would be $60 a month I'd pay for my TV. Add it 4 or 5 movies a month at $4.99 each (for HD rentals), I'd still only be paying $85/month for my tv content. Now if Apple allows you to purchase the shows and gives your $.99 rental fee as credit toward the purchase of the show, that would be golden. Between Apple's offering, Free Hulu content, and Netflix, I would have all of the content I need (minus live sports, but I'm sure there will eventually be options for that) for way less than my current $130/month DirecTV bill! Hurry up Apple!

 

[the-oz-man]

If I'm going to pay .99, I want to own the content and not rent it. May it free and put in iAds. That would be the best solution with streaming. Otherwise leave it like it is.

 

[stickyd8]

Compare it to your cable bill

I personally feel that any kind of payment per episode model will fail. Who wants to pay upwards of $25 for one season of a show? If you rent those episodes, you can never go back and watch them again for free.

Hulu and Netflix grant you all-you-can-eat access for one flat rate. This is what the cable companies have done and have been successful too.

Until Apple creates a subscription plan for ALL tv shows, count me out.

You folks are looking at it wrong. So you're okay with paying $100+ per month for DirecTV or Cable service, but you're not okay with paying less than $80 and getting all the shows you actually want to watch and access to view any content at any time? I watch about 20 out of 300 channels on DirecTV. I'd gladly pay .99 per episode to watch the shows I want to see.

 

[stickyd8]

If I'm going to pay .99, I want to own the content and not rent it. May it free and put in iAds. That would be the best solution with streaming. Otherwise leave it like it is.

Thank the studios for not being able to buy the episodes for $.99. It's not Apple's fault. They tried to convince them, but got shot down. I do like the iAds idea. However, Apple should offer to stream episodes for free with iAds or give options to pay $.99 to watch without them or $1.50 to own the episodes. Or better yet, charge $40/$50 per month and have access to stream all content in iTunes!

 

[davisjw]

Renting TV shows is ludicrous when I have free on demand TV via Comcast and via the internet through network websites.

The reason you purchase a show is to have it to watch whenever you want, as often as you want. Renting is a one shot watch and for that I'll go free thank you Apple.

 

[zim]

Rending dones't work for me, will get very expensive. Apple should continue with a purchase option, hopefully a cheaper purchase option. My daughter watches TV mostly on it iPod Touch... iTunes shows that she has watched the last episode of Team Umizoomi 15 times (she tends to fast forward and restart often so I don't think she has actually watched it that many times, she only gets to use the iPod once per day).

 

[Xenious]

Close...

I don't care for .99 show rentals, but make it a 10-20$ all I can watch plan and now we're talking. Even if its limited to 2-3 being downloaded/rented at a time.

 

[CWallace]

.99 without closed caption is still expensive for buying the episodes.

Apple is forcing their rules to suck money out of your pocket...

No, the content owners are forcing their rules on Apple to "suck money out of your pocket".

Apple wants to sell you the hardware to play back that content, so they want the content as cheap as possible. If Apple could control the pricing, it would be free, because that would be the strongest incentive for people to shell out hundreds of dollars on iPod Touches, iPhones, iPads and tvs.

But the content providers look at the profit margins Apple makes on that hardware and ask why they should "give away" their product to help Apple sell more of it.

 

[dmm219]

1. this isn't for everyone...if you watch so much tv as to need a subscription (in my opinion, only valid for a large family, otherwise, either you watch too much tv or you don't understand finance too well), this obviously isn't for you.

2. Lets see, cable costs over $50 a month for most people...do you watch 50 episodes a month? if so, congrats, you have a point, if not, then you really need to learn some math (no wonder this country's citizens are in such financial disorder.

3. Smart people use itunes as the option of last resort...start with hulu, if you can't find your show there, got to netflix, still can't find your show? only then do you buy on itunes...this will make that last option $1 cheaper.

 

[Rot'nApple]

Ultimately a subscription service may work best. Give you access to 'x' number of shows for £x a month and you stream them on demand whenever you want.

Agreed!

I would love to cancel my cable subscription and pay a subscription to create a line-up of shows and movies, both old and relatively current, as well as access to the current shows being shown on tv today as well as live sporting events and, again, have the ability through subscription to create my own line-up.

I have a basic cable package and about 50 channels of which probably 15 are of half way decent programming. The rest I can live without (my own personal tastes).

With a create your own line-up I could narrow that down to probably two or three channels of back to back programming of the shows I like to see when I flip through the channels.

But if I have to endure another "Real Wives of..." or go from fishing to ice road trucking to chopping down trees to baking cakes "work" shows or if another day in the life of a "little person" show comes on air as "new and exciting", my tv may see just how far it can fly out a second story window!

 

[axual]

The Cloud ...

The cloud ... why not just use the term "Internet" instead. It's not a cloud, it's a bunch of servers connected to the network called the Internet.

 

[alent1234]

You folks are looking at it wrong. So you're okay with paying $100+ per month for DirecTV or Cable service, but you're not okay with paying less than $80 and getting all the shows you actually want to watch and access to view any content at any time? I watch about 20 out of 300 channels on DirecTV. I'd gladly pay .99 per episode to watch the shows I want to see.

for my $99 cable bill i get hundreds of channels, internet access and telephone service. another $12.95 adds a DVR which is awesome if you have kids. i record a few cartoons so there is always a supply available for what my son wants to watch.

sometimes i turn on Discovery Channel or some other educational channel and my son has fun watching it as well.

my wife watches her reality shows which she also DVR's in case she can't watch that day.

a lot more value than what Apple seems to want to offer. add the fact that a lot of new TV's and blu ray players have netflix, youtube and other online services built in and i don't see a point in going the Apple TV or iTunes lock in route

 

[segfaultdotorg]

Can they please make it like their movie rental and not streaming only? Not everyone's Internet connection is rock-solid stable.

 

[pmz]

Another fail

You can't blame Apple, its the TV studios, but this is still another fail.

People don't and won't see streaming over dl'ing as a convenience. If it were, then the price would not have to go down to make it seem more attractive.

This translates to: "We're going to charge a little less, but offer less, so in short, we all lose."

This may be fine for an Apple TV device that is stationary, powered, and always connected.

This is a terrible model for Apple's iOS portables, most of which do not have 3G (half of iPads, all iPod touch, etc..), those with 3G now have limited plans, and streaming video battery life is absolutely positively terrible.

I'm sorry but I don't see one single benefit here for iOS device users.

Not. One.

 

[soapsuds]

I would love .99 rentals. I hardly ever want to watch a TV show twice, so at half the price, even if I watched every show twice on average (or my favorites more times and other less times) it would still be a wash. Plus, I hate having to manage old shows on my hard drive. If I got rid of my cable bill (minus internet) and watched even shows I watch for free on Netflix via this method I would still come out ahead, and might consider buying an AppleTV (especially if the rumored $99 iOS model comes out). However, I don't have kids and don't watch a lot of TV, so I realize this math doesn't work for everyone. But for me, not having commercials is something I'm willing to pay for. Plus, I just forked over an eye-popping $3 (!) to rent an episode of True Blood on Amazon Video the other day just for the ability to watch it on my TV (Viera-cast BluRay player) instead buying the same episode for $3 on Tunes but having to watch it on the computer. I don't know how the Amazon and iTunes versions compare in video quality, though.

 

[ChargerSteve]

Makes more sense for a single person than a family

In my family, often my wife and I like the same show, but DVR it and watch it at different times. Under this model, that practice may cost double. This would be a lot more appealing to me if the rental fee allowed multiple viewings over a week. For me the rent vs own thing isn't a problem as I don't want to watch a TV show multiple times myself, but would want it available to watch by individual family members according to their schedule. Obviously owning for the same price would offer more flexibility, but I could be happy with a week-long rental period with unlimited viewings.

 

[Astro7x]

So would this be streaming only? And what quality? I'd pay .99 cents to rent an episode of TV if I can download it to my iPod Touch and have it expire just like a movie rental.

Why would I do this? I pay $10/month for Netflix and can watch unlimited TV shows and movies.

I would think the main appeal would be to be able to rent the current season of TV shows for $1 an episode. Would come in handy when you want to get caught up on a show and want to watch it on the go or on the TV and not in front of your computer. Even the Hulu Plus streaming service which will be $10 will be required to stream the recent episodes to your TV. But so far the quality has yet to be seen for TV streaming.

99 cents to buy a DRM free 1080p episode and maybe I'd consider buying through iTunes.

That would be a definite selling point for me, would maybe consider dropping cable at that point at $78 a month. But I'd settle for being able to rent since I very rarely go back and watch TV shows more than once. The only thing keeping me from ditching cable right now is that I can watch things in the highest quality in HD on my big screen. Streaming services like netflix still look like garbage and not worth it IMO.

 

[Cynicalone]

Like I say every time this comes up. As long as they leave the download option available then I don't have a problem with it.

I'm not going to give Apple or anyone a dollar for something I don't own and can only watch once.

Subscription models have never been popular at Apple. Steve has been very outspoken against them.

This reminds me of the Verizon iPhone, a rumor that comes up every few months but never actually happens.

 

[jettredmont]

I dont like how things like watching TV are set to get more expensive. And i hope it doesnt end up where we can only rent TV shows, watch them once and pay again if we want to see it again and not own them.

Scanning down the play count on my rather sizeable library of shows ... very few are at 2. None more. If I'd paid $2 for the shows I watched twice (and some of those were back-to-back; my wife and I watched them then the kids later that night or the next morning), I'd still have paid about 45% less for the shows altogether. Which means I would have bought more on ATV/iTunes rather than Hulu.

Of course, this only stands up if in fact the streaming iTunes shows for $1 are comparable quality-wise to the downloadable iTunes shows, just as is the case with movies. Hulu quality is horrid, relatively speaking, which is the main draw of paying $2 for the show on iTunes rather than just streaming it (aside from shows that iTunes gets the night after and Hulu gets a week later); I'd rather get a show start buffering for 5 minutes while I do other stuff, then watch it in high quality, than watch nearly buffer-free streaming which occasionally sputters and stops (and also tends to ramp up fans and heat up the laptop ...)

 

[jettredmont]

$0.99 might be an acceptable price to own a TV show, but not to rent. Most shows I like to watch 4 or 5 times.

I'm fairly certain that you are in a distinct minority there. Granted, I'd rather $0.99 be "the price", period, so we don't have to worry about the odd case where we want to watch it again a week later, but the vast majority of people watch a show once (with minor "nostalgia" exceptions, but those comprise a minority of such watcher's TV watching of new shows...)

 

[SpaceKitty]

I'm fairly certain that you are in a distinct minority there. Granted, I'd rather $0.99 be "the price", period, so we don't have to worry about the odd case where we want to watch it again a week later, but the vast majority of people watch a show once (with minor "nostalgia" exceptions, but those comprise a minority of such watcher's TV watching of new shows...)

I'm also another one who watches my shows over and over. I usually watch them again about every six months or so. I have started watching Desperate Housewives all over again from season one. I had seasons 3-6 in HD and finally bought the first three again this time in HD. They weren't available in HD when I first bought those seasons. It's like watching them all over again for he first time.