Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
don't like rental - especially if it isn't streamed - don't want to wait an hour to download a 1/2 hour show!
the way for itv to work is to offer an app for abc, fox, disney, espn, etc
with espn app - you get live streaming from that broadcaster
you could then pick what apps (channels) you want
pick 3 channels or 30 or 300 with each channel charging monthly fee - just like the broadcaster charges comcast or whatever cable provider you use
you set up your own package and can add subtract or cancel anything/everything on a monthly basis!
i could live with ten channels (at $1-$5 each) i might pay just $25 and get everything i want and nothing i don't!
the way for itv to work is to offer an app for abc, fox, disney, espn, etc
with espn app - you get live streaming from that broadcaster
you could then pick what apps (channels) you want
pick 3 channels or 30 or 300 with each channel charging monthly fee - just like the broadcaster charges comcast or whatever cable provider you use
you set up your own package and can add subtract or cancel anything/everything on a monthly basis!
i could live with ten channels (at $1-$5 each) i might pay just $25 and get everything i want and nothing i don't!
My ideal situation would be a good DVR to record OTA channels in HD with cable-only shows available through iTunes. 99 cents isn't bad at all, especially if it's HD. I'd be saving $80/month on my cable bill. That's $960 per year. Assuming 22 episode seasons, I could watch 43 series in addition to what's available over the air! I would probably watch considerably less than half of that.
The only hangup for me is ESPN. Which is owned by Disney. Hopefully Steve Jobs can negotiate a solution.
The only hangup for me is ESPN. Which is owned by Disney. Hopefully Steve Jobs can negotiate a solution.
If you could do it on a monthly basis, I would be surprised. There wouldn't be a lot of subscribers for the summer months when there are fewer new shows coming out.
I think it would be cool if you could pick as many channels as you want, on a yearly subscription, then divide that total by 12 and pay monthly.
ESPN pack: $90
ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX: $25 a piece
History, Discover, Science channels: $15 a piece.
Say you get each of those, that's $235 for the year or just under 20 bucks a month. I might go for something like that.
Apple to Offer 99-Cent TV Show Rentals?
I think this would be great. Personally, I would love to drop Comcast subscription TV and just pay for each show. Some shows like the Daily Show & Colbert would add up (~$17/month) and what about shows like Morning Joe that I have on when I am getting ready in the morning (~$22/month). Then you got PTI, which could be another $22. What about sporting games? I'm just thinking that this could all add up fast, if I was to drop Comcast and go to this kind of service. Of course, it may not go to this extreme in the end or at first, I know that. I'm just thinking ahead.
Yes, packages would be great. I could see that working out well for both consumers and providers.
I think this would be great. Personally, I would love to drop Comcast subscription TV and just pay for each show. Some shows like the Daily Show & Colbert would add up (~$17/month) and what about shows like Morning Joe that I have on when I am getting ready in the morning (~$22/month). Then you got PTI, which could be another $22. What about sporting games? I'm just thinking that this could all add up fast, if I was to drop Comcast and go to this kind of service. Of course, it may not go to this extreme in the end or at first, I know that. I'm just thinking ahead.
Yes, packages would be great. I could see that working out well for both consumers and providers.
well since Jobs sits on the Disney board of directors, he most definitely should come up with a solution/compromise.
I will eventually get an iTV or GoogleTV, i'm just waiting to see which offers better service/programming/price-point.
Not going to purchase a device for brand loyalty.
That seems pretty sensible to me.
I personally would like to see some sort of subscription service instead of per episode. $20 a month would be great.
I will eventually get an iTV or GoogleTV, i'm just waiting to see which offers better service/programming/price-point.
I was under the impression Google TV was just for searching programs, no content delivery?
With Hulu, I generally watch about about 3 shows a night. That would cost me $90 a month if I rented those same shows through iTunes. No thanks.
Now, if Apple were to offer an all-you-can-eat subscription plan for around $30 a month, and it would work on both my Mac and my iPad, I'd be interested in that.
Now, if Apple were to offer an all-you-can-eat subscription plan for around $30 a month, and it would work on both my Mac and my iPad, I'd be interested in that.
99 cents is too expensive for a tv show rental. For that price, you should get to keep it forever. Here's what I think would be ideal prices.
$0.39 - rent a TV show for a week
$0.99 - buy a TV show
$0.99 - rent a movie for a week
$8.00 - buy a movie
It's really ridiculous that they charge 4 bucks to rent a movie for 24 hours. You can get a movie from Redbox for 24 hours for only 1 dollar. And with iTunes, there's no physical media involved, All they're doing is sending bits. They don't have to have any physical inventory or anything, so they have no justification for charging so much. They really ought to be significantly cheaper than the alternative, not more expensive. The same goes for TV shows.
$0.39 - rent a TV show for a week
$0.99 - buy a TV show
$0.99 - rent a movie for a week
$8.00 - buy a movie
It's really ridiculous that they charge 4 bucks to rent a movie for 24 hours. You can get a movie from Redbox for 24 hours for only 1 dollar. And with iTunes, there's no physical media involved, All they're doing is sending bits. They don't have to have any physical inventory or anything, so they have no justification for charging so much. They really ought to be significantly cheaper than the alternative, not more expensive. The same goes for TV shows.
If I could pay $2-4 (per game) to watch a College or NFL Football game of my choice (imagine completely avoiding blackouts), I would pay it without asking twice and would probably piss my pants from excitement. The only reason I have Direct TV is for the HD capability, College and NFL Football and misc. TV shows (3-4 total). I pay about $75 a month after taxes so being able to spend $1 per show, and a possible $2-4 per football game would make me the happiest person alive. There is so much crap on TV now, iTV sounds fantastic. It just needs a sports option and I bet it would really start invading peoples homes.
A "real" antenna is usually $30-50 for people in cities. Once. And most of the cable series are available for free online not long after airing on the network. I really don't see myself paying $.99/show.
They can't even put HD on their networks, it'll be years before we get it via the net.
How are you planning on getting them for free? Downloading them illegally? Well that makes for a sustainable future buddy.
Well from what I can see it delivers content from the web, but it doesn't deliver TV shows unless you have a DVR or something. So you still need to subscribe to a service. At least watching their videos that's what I've gathered. Unless you can point me to something different, I still believe it's just a search feature.
I hope this apples to Fox News shows. I'd gladly pay 99 cants to catch Beck before going to bed.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Over and over and over I keep reading responses of people pitching their ideal plan at a price a lot lower than they pay for cable/satt now. That's a great dream everyone, but why are those on the other end going to go for that?
They want to make at least as much as they make now from a current, well entrenched model. What motivates them to want to make less AND perhaps help Apple get them under their thumb like their buddies in the music industry?
My favorites are posts by people wanting an "all I can eat" iTunes subscription plan in HD and commercial free for about $XX, where $XX is typically well below the bill they pay now. Such dreams would be great for us consumers- I'm 100% with you on wanting that kind of thing- but why are the producers motivated to do that? What's in it for them?
Furthermore, I've posted it before in this kind of thread. Why would the companies that generally own our broadband pipes and sell us lucrative cable TV subscriptions choose to leave our broadband rates the same should something like this gain any legs? After all, Comcast- in my own case- would be pumping video via iTunes through "their" pipe so that I can reward Apple with a video subscription (that used to be Comcast's revenue stream). Why will Comcast allow that to happen? Won't they just raise broadband rates and/or raise them via tiered pricing to make up for losses on those quitting cableTV?
And since many have the broadband provider choice of 1 or 2 companies at most, where you going to go if they do?
Thus unfortunately, I don't see everyone else losing on this so that we and Apple can win. Instead, I would expect to see at least as much money flowing to the producers to motivate them to support this kind of thing, AND broadband rates going up or tiered rates showing up to bill more for greater amounts of download bandwidth (which would obviously come from people downloading all they can eat via an iTunes subscription). We consumers would have to be the source of all that money (to make up for no commercials, to make up for canceled cableTV revenues while still using cable broadband pipes, etc), which means paying less and getting more and ending up with something comparable to the entrenched solution seems unlikely.
I love the dream that we could get HD, commercial free, all we want for about half what we pay now via cable/satt. But it's almost certainly just a dream. Just put yourself in the other side's shoes, and you should see it too
They want to make at least as much as they make now from a current, well entrenched model. What motivates them to want to make less AND perhaps help Apple get them under their thumb like their buddies in the music industry?
My favorites are posts by people wanting an "all I can eat" iTunes subscription plan in HD and commercial free for about $XX, where $XX is typically well below the bill they pay now. Such dreams would be great for us consumers- I'm 100% with you on wanting that kind of thing- but why are the producers motivated to do that? What's in it for them?
Furthermore, I've posted it before in this kind of thread. Why would the companies that generally own our broadband pipes and sell us lucrative cable TV subscriptions choose to leave our broadband rates the same should something like this gain any legs? After all, Comcast- in my own case- would be pumping video via iTunes through "their" pipe so that I can reward Apple with a video subscription (that used to be Comcast's revenue stream). Why will Comcast allow that to happen? Won't they just raise broadband rates and/or raise them via tiered pricing to make up for losses on those quitting cableTV?
And since many have the broadband provider choice of 1 or 2 companies at most, where you going to go if they do?
Thus unfortunately, I don't see everyone else losing on this so that we and Apple can win. Instead, I would expect to see at least as much money flowing to the producers to motivate them to support this kind of thing, AND broadband rates going up or tiered rates showing up to bill more for greater amounts of download bandwidth (which would obviously come from people downloading all they can eat via an iTunes subscription). We consumers would have to be the source of all that money (to make up for no commercials, to make up for canceled cableTV revenues while still using cable broadband pipes, etc), which means paying less and getting more and ending up with something comparable to the entrenched solution seems unlikely.
I love the dream that we could get HD, commercial free, all we want for about half what we pay now via cable/satt. But it's almost certainly just a dream. Just put yourself in the other side's shoes, and you should see it too
This would be amazing if Apple could do 99 cent rentals with full support behind them of all the major networks and cable stations.
I ran the math before... at 99 cents an episode and a typical 22 episode season for the shows that I enjoy watching, it would cost 2/3 of my yearly subscription to the Comcast Cable service. Hopefully the 24 hour rental period would be enough I'd love to take shows to go the next day on my iPod Touch on the train ride to work, but I'm sure my finance might not watch them until the weekend when she has time. So if a show aired Wednesday, and I rented it Thursday at 8am, she would have until 8am Saturday to watch it on the Apple TV? That seems reasonable. Not as great as a DVR, but not as expensive either.
If Apple did a 7 day rental period that would be amazing.
I ran the math before... at 99 cents an episode and a typical 22 episode season for the shows that I enjoy watching, it would cost 2/3 of my yearly subscription to the Comcast Cable service. Hopefully the 24 hour rental period would be enough I'd love to take shows to go the next day on my iPod Touch on the train ride to work, but I'm sure my finance might not watch them until the weekend when she has time. So if a show aired Wednesday, and I rented it Thursday at 8am, she would have until 8am Saturday to watch it on the Apple TV? That seems reasonable. Not as great as a DVR, but not as expensive either.
If Apple did a 7 day rental period that would be amazing.