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 only hangup for me is ESPN. Which is owned by Disney. Hopefully Steve Jobs can negotiate a solution.
That seems pretty sensible to me.Glad If they are going to charge $0.99 for renting a 22 or 44 minute episode on iTV, they should at least offer half-off if you subscribe to the entire season up front. I would hope this all is HD content we are talking about.
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.
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 dont pick up everything.)
A typical American show is about 22 episodes per year. Follow ten shows religiously and youd spend $220.
....
I was under the impression Google TV was just for searching programs, no content delivery?
well since Jobs sits on the Disney board of directors, he most definitely should come up with a solution/compromise.
I was under the impression Google TV was just for searching programs, no content delivery?
People who rent TV shows (which you can get for free) are idiots.
No way, its for content delivery as well.
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?/QUOTE]
Let the people dream, then the bitching will commence when it doesn't happen.
Realistically though, if a channel makes 25 cents per subscriber on basic cable (which is being very generous!), and Apple takes 30%, as long as I rent 5 episodes a year from them at 99 cents than they've made the same amount of money.
If Netflix can be a **** ton cheaper than Blockbuster on a cost per disc basis, then there has to be a way to do it with television and digital distribution
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?
If you think people are going to make a mass exodus to Apple TV because of 99 cent rentals you're wrong.