Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple to Offer 99-Cent TV Show Rentals?

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I think this is great. I have cable and a Tivo, so I can meet most of my watching needs, but I have no need to own these shows, so buying them wasn't really a great option for me. I'll usually only watch a show once, so now I can pay the .99 and be done with it without it filling up hard drive space.
 
get ESPN on board with this and will pay you 99c for each game. Otherwise thanks but no thanks. Considering that you can stream TV shows from so many sources charging 99c to view it from iTunes is borderline insane. Maybe Apple should consider the fact that you do indeed have to pay for your internet connection and the value that they offer is in fact a lot less than what they like it to be. This hardly like providing an on demand TV experience. Then there is the cost of having another box for your TV … oh and Apple will have a very hard time addressing the licensing issues when you move between geographic locations. It's a good idea in general but in order for it to be successful you need a lot lower price point. People were used to paying $15 for a CD but noone pays nearly as much to watch TV ...
 
Sorry big entertainment companies, but PPV is not the future of broadcasting. It certainly has its place in terms of sports, porn, and new releases, but $.99 pricing without some sort of subscription plan will keep the new iTV just as much of a "hobby" as the current AppleTV device is. Netflix has the model to beat currently, and unless Apple has some sort of all-you-can-eat subscription model in place, they just won't be able to compete.

Of course, if Apple doesn't end up offering a subscription plan, the entertainment companies are most likely to blame. TV and Movie companies have watched the iTunes dominance in the field of music and are probably not keen to see Apple gain that kind of power in their industries. It would not surprise me if they refuse to license their content to Apple for subscriptions precisely to prevent Apple from doing to TV/Movies what they've done to the music industry.
 
swingerofbirch said:
I'd prefer that to the current model. $1.99 is too much for something I don't want to see more than once and also with buying a show I feel obligated to store it. It's hard to throw something you've bought that you could keep into the trash—at least for me.

Plus, if I buy a show or movie, I like to buy blu-ray. I know I am in the minority there, or at least going against what people say the trends are.

So, this would be appealing, especially if it were 720p at 99 cents.
Click to expand...

Agreed!


KnightWRX said:
Too expensive. Renting a show for .99$ ? Cable is just much cheaper. Heck, buying the DVDs is cheaper and leaves you owning the show for multiple viewings.
Click to expand...

Maybe you have super-cheap cable or watch a lot more shows than I, but for me this option would be FAR cheaper than cable. (And my rabbit ears don’t pick up everything.)

A typical American show is about 22 episodes per year. Follow ten shows religiously and you’d spend $220.

For cable to match that yearly cost it would have to be $18/month. Where I live, you can’t get cable that cheaply. So there’s plenty of cushion left to spend on movie rentals (which you might otherwise see on cable).

And if you follow only six shows ($132) that’s equivalent to $11/month.

But it’s not just cheap, it can also be better than cable: YOU choose what shows and movies to watch and when, AND no commercials!

I personally watch regular network shows by rabbit ears (ads are skippable via EyeTV), or on Hulu if I miss one. Cable shows I watch either on Hulu or by iTunes season pass (which is more than $1 per episode). I come out WAY ahead by not paying for cable and I see almost no ads. If I could rent the shows for a buck, that would be cheaper still. And I don’t always WANT to have every episode forever. (That would be a storage nightmare, and there are plenty of shows/movies worth seeing once but not worth spending endless hours re-watching, when new shows have come along.)

And even people with cable can miss an occasional episode. 99 cents to get caught up is nothing.

This is only an option, not something people will be forced to buy—but it’s an option I do want! (And I’d like a rental-subscription option too, if that’s cheaper than the current Season Pass option. If that doesn’t happen, renting individually is better than nothing—especially if you miss just one episode.)
 
Man, what do you all pay for cable? I'm surprised so many of you think this is expensive.

Something like this would let me knock about $60 off my bill. Assuming I don't watch TV 10 days a month that leaves me with about 20 days to spend under $60 on iTunes rentals.

If they really cost $1 that's 3 shows per night.

You may say "I watch more than that." Yes, but I'm still going to buy DVDs. I own things like The Simpsons, Psych, and Dexter. I buy those while I have cable and I'd buy those if I didn't have cable.

So those "2 shows per night" are in ADDITION to the DVDs I'm gonna buy and watch anyway. If I'm watching 1 or 2 DVD shows in the evening I'd think that I'd be able to keep my rental spending under 3 additional shows.

Maybe I just don't watch as much TV as you all seem to.
 
Sounds very, very good to me (although too bad I still doubt it will ever make it to Sweden..). If the rumors for apps is true too I'm pretty much in heaven. In the best of worlds they would make your rental money count towards a purchase in the future too.
 
They have to got to have something else up their sleeve. I mean a $1.00 per episode rental and some apps really can't be the pinnacle or driving force behind the iTV experience. Seriously there must be more to it.
 
No thanks, I'll continue to buy my shows used on DVD and handbrake them or go through netflix (where with the TV influx I finally have a backlog of TV shows).
 
It would be awesome if these big tv and film companies just set up their own file stores so we could download any tv show.move/song we wanted when we wanted with no up front charge. Meanwhile they could talk to our isp's so we all got charged more for our internet (perhaps even double). This extra could all go into a pot designed for paying royalties depending on what content was downloaded.
It'll never happen. But I can dream......
 
Can't beat eyeTV and HDHomeRun for OTA-HD nirvana

This sucks and is only useful for people that cannot absolutely get OTA-HD or want to watch a cable only show. For all other mac users there is HDHomeRun (or some other similar product) and eyeTV 3.x. Works great. I record everything and skip commercials. All in pristine 1080i or 720p (depending on the program and station). I live in the Orlando market and get 41 digital stations using an antenna.
 
Great post Eriden.

The networks and studios have no interest in allowing Apple to become a video-distribution juggernaut. The iTV's killer-app can't hinge on VOD - it has to be how it ties-together your digital life via the Mac/iPhone/iPad ecosystem.

But - If we instead think about iTV will living room Netflix and Hulu, with much, much more via iOS - instead of focusing on Apple's week hand in VOD - then the box seems very compelling.

Eriden said:
Netflix has the model to beat currently, and unless Apple has some sort of all-you-can-eat subscription model in place, they just won't be able to compete...

It would not surprise me if they refuse to license their content to Apple for subscriptions precisely to prevent Apple from doing to TV/Movies what they've done to the music industry.
Click to expand...
 
Chupa Chupa said:
.99 TV show rentals make Hulu Plus seem like a bargain. Think about it for $10 a month you get unlimited views of TV shows AND your subscription isn't locked to a single device. Hopefully the subscription plan is more enticing or I sense a rare Apple belly flop.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you're not watching HULU on your TV in HD (not yet anyway). Also, when I rent a movie on my AppleTV, it's not locked to my TV, I can transfer it to my iPhone, Computer or iPad and watch it.

I think Apple wants to do a subscription service too, but the studios are pushing back (not sure why since most are allowing Hulu to do it). The .99c rental would be great for me. I spend $130/mont on DirecTV. If I rented 4 shows per day, it would still be cheaper than my current bill. Plus, combine AppleTV with my Netflix, and Hulu Plus, and I pretty much have every thing I want to watch. I just wish Apple had a $50-$75 all you can watch subscription of it's iTunes content. That would be perfect!
 
While I love the idea of episode rentals, the price point is too expensive. Yeah, you can say that it's only $.99 , but those charges can quickly add up to "death by 1000 paper cuts".

I don't consider myself much of a TV watcher, but I watch enough shows that this would easily cost more than my cable bill.
 
Why do people act like this is a good deal? It's not awful, but compared to the current model it's terrible.

$1 - Rent for 48 hours
$2 - Own forever
$3 - Own forever in HD

I suppose it's good if you really don't ever want to see it again, but it's not exactly a massive increase. Plus for the off chance you do want to see it again, you'd be paying the same price as owning it in the first place. If they really do go this route, they better not increase the prices to own episodes. :mad:
 
I don't know why Apple doesn't put together a good subscription model... take out netflix, blockbuster, hulu, espn...

hopefully they don't cripple the iTV.. i just want to install netflix/slingbox on it and call it good.
 
I would not support Rubert Murdoch for any amount of money not when its free.

I'm wondering if Apple knows that television is still free?
 
if i cut the TV part out of my cable bill i'll save maybe $30. might as well have my time warner triple play with TV, internet and phone and DVR and not worry about renting too much

the business model is broken only for a small minority of people. the current system works for most of us
 
Small White Car said:
Dunno...it SEEMS expensive but it could honestly end up being cheaper than what I pay for cable now.

We'll see.
Click to expand...

I agree. Many of us pay at least $50 per month on cable. Can anyone here say that they watch 50 TV shows per week? That about 7 shows per day. If anyone watches that much, you should get out more. There's so much crap on TV, I would gladly pay $0.99 per TV show. My monthly "cable" bill would be about $15. I'll buy that.

But, for some reason, I find this too good to be true. Likely the cable companies will make you buy some "base package" and TV shows will be additional. Or, the show selection will be horrible.
 
I agree, that is expensive. I pay about $4.3/day for FiOS television with DVR and HBO + high-speed internet. There is programming on the internet you can watch at no additional cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back