Apple to Offer 99-Cent TV Show Rentals?

[BTW]

Sorry to be a wet noodle but I'd prefer a subscription plan. 99 cents a show adds up quickly.

Why can't someone, doesn't have to be Apple, give us the ability to choose which stations we want to watch? My preferred would be all of the local stations plus the History Channel, Food Network, The Travel Channel, Discovery, Sci-Fi, Disney, and Nickelodeon. Instead, all of the providers want you to pay for 800 channels with very little content worthwhile watching.

 

[pgwalsh]

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?

Right now their's a discussion on Ars about people unsubscribing from Cable. The majority of posters have cut cable. Most have done so because of pricing and poor content. Many are looking for alternatives, but want to keep price down. So if this trend continues then content pricing will have to drop or be ad supported.

Apple will definitely have its audience, but I don't think it's the winning solution. I certainly wont be buying an iTV or paying .99 cents an episode. i've already cut my cable and I'm happy renting movies from Netflix. If content makers want my business they'll have to find a better solution than ultra expensive cable or 99 cent episodes. Right now Hulu Plus is looking promising.

 

[0098386]

...I'll stick with the License Fee and EyeTV.

 

[jdm111]

This is getting ready for iTV where TV Shows will be streamed, rather than stored.

 

[backinblack875]

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.

at .99$ an episode at the average of 22 episodes a season for a tv show (sometimes less) will come out around 13-25$ depending on show episodes per season. where as buying DVDs are anywhere from 40-60$...

although it is still too expensive, all depending on how many shows you watch.... i really only watch 2 consistently so i would be ok with this... even though i watch like 3 or 4 other inconsistently which would be nice to also get

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

I'd buy that for a dollar!

Fning Classic dude!

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Sorry to be a wet noodle but I'd prefer a subscription plan. 99 cents a show adds up quickly.

Why can't someone, doesn't have to be Apple, give us the ability to choose which stations we want to watch? My preferred would be all of the local stations plus the History Channel, Food Network, The Travel Channel, Discovery, Sci-Fi, Disney, and Nickelodeon. Instead, all of the providers want you to pay for 800 channels with very little content worthwhile watching.

Some of those 793 other channels forced upon you helps make up for the more popular channels you/we want. The owners of bundled channels get to sell ads on all those channels. They make lots of revenue from those ads. If we can all choose to stop watching those channels, no one buys the ads on those channels, so they make less revenue.

What do they do? They'll charge more for the more popular channels that people are watching to make up for that lost revenue. Nobody wants to make less money in this to help Apple make more money and so that we consumers can pay less money for what we want.

And, for those locals, put up an antenna. Chances are good that quality will be much better than you can get from your cable/satt provider or Apple via free over-the-air captured with an antenna. It's great and comes with no monthly subscription costs.

 

[splashnader]

at .99$ an episode at the average of 22 episodes a season for a tv show (sometimes less) will come out around 13-25$ depending on show episodes per season. where as buying DVDs are anywhere from 40-60$...

although it is still too expensive, all depending on how many shows you watch.... i really only watch 2 consistently so i would be ok with this... even though i watch like 3 or 4 other inconsistently which would be nice to also get

The difference is that when you buy a DVD collection at Best Buy, etc, you are owning it. With this plan from Apple, even though it appears in the short run to be cheaper, you are only renting the content. Which means if you ever want to watch the episode again, you will have to pay 99 cents again.

I will stick to my Netflix plan of unlimited streaming and renting for catalogue watching, and Tivo for new episode watching.

 

[aohus]

They can't even put HD on their networks, it'll be years before we get it via the net.

what are you talking about? I watched ABC and ESPN both in HD for some years now... FYI, ABC/ESPN is owned by Disney.

 

[synth3tik]

For shows with shorter seasons this maybe acceptable, but for shows that run 18-24 episodes a season this could compare the to price of a DVD.


Oh, and Adult Swims 11 minute episodes, yeah, going to have to charge 35 cents for that.

 

[old-wiz]

Anybody want to bet that when you rent for .99 you will still have to watch the stupid commercials?

 

[paul4339]

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.

the problem with "packs" and "channels" is that they have lots of content/crap which people don't want.


I don't mind the 0.99 an episode as long as they're an option to subscribe for, say $12.99, to the entire season (say 20 episodes). Maybe $20-25 for the daily/nightly shows like soaps or late night talk shows.

If my cable bill is $65x12 = $780 per year (or whatever your cable bill is now)... I can now subscribe to, say, 10 series (entire seasons) and a few nightly talk shows for around $200. I can use the remaining savings to pick and choose specific shows at 0.99.


Less content, but also less crap.



P.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

The difference is that when you buy a DVD collection at Best Buy, etc, you are owning it. With this plan from Apple, even though it appears in the short run to be cheaper, you are only renting the content. Which means if you ever want to watch the episode again, you will have to pay 99 cents again.

You are comparing it to DVD - but when you compare it to cable/satellite, people are already paying more than that for content they don't keep.

Everyone has the option to wait for DVD - but really, don't people on this forum argue that physical media is dead anyway?



99 cents seems WAY too low. I bet the only way Apple got the content producers to agree to that is through rental. I'm still willing to bet it will have commercials in it with iAd 2.0 or something along those lines. Apple will re-invent television advertising (if you can call it television at this point).


Better yet, Apple will introduce this, get it rolling , build some steam and get everyone on board and people buying like crazy, then they will offer a free, feature packed update to the new Apple TV (AppleTV OS 4).

This will include the next mutation of the beast called iAd. Apple's ad network will be everywhere.

 

[Mjmar]

Would it be .99 per episode, or .99 per serie?

lol

 

[macUser2007]

.... Apple will introduce this, get it rolling , build some steam and get everyone on board and people buying like crazy, then they will offer a free, feature packed update to the new Apple TV (AppleTV OS 4).

This will include the mutation of iAd. Apple's ad network will be everywhere.

LOL, this sounds just like what Apple was planning with the original Apple TV. See how far it got them....

Anyway, this just shows why Steve Jobs went to war against Flash, and why Flash is not allowed on iOS.

Because much of this content is already available for free though Flash on desktops, and as Android picks up steam, it will be available for free on more and more mobile devices.

Steve Jobs screwed up the ebook market by promoting higher prices (so he can get his cut), now he'll try to do it with the film/TV market.

Thank god for Android and for all the Android tablets coming to market before Christmas.

And thank god for Google TV.

 

[backinblack875]

Anybody want to bet that when you rent for .99 you will still have to watch the stupid commercials?

haha i doubt it

unless maybe iAd... would definitely make sense. but still doubt it

 

[lilo777]

You are comparing it to DVD - but when you compare it to cable/satellite, people are already paying more than that for content they don't keep.

Everyone has the option to wait for DVD - but really, don't people on this forum argue that physical media is dead anyway?



99 cents seems WAY too low. I bet the only way Apple got the content producers to agree to that is through rental. I'm still willing to bet it will have commercials in it with iAd 2.0 or something along those lines. Apple will re-invent television advertising (if you can call it television at this point).


Better yet, Apple will introduce this, get it rolling , build some steam and get everyone on board and people buying like crazy, then they will offer a free, feature packed update to the new Apple TV (AppleTV OS 4).

This will include the next mutation of the beast called iAd. Apple's ad network will be everywhere.

How exactly do you compare the prices? Let's say a family has cable service and watches TV, say, 4 hours per day (we all know it's way more on average). So it's 4 * 30 = 120 hours. It's an eqiuvalent of 120 to 240 shows (depending on show length). Aplpe will charge you way more than Comcast. At the same time, one can watch most of these shows for free from web sites (Fox, ABC etc.). Between Comcast (quality) and web sites (free), I am not sure Apple has any wiggle room with this pricing.

 

[klrobinson999]

I only watch about 10 television shows on any regular basis. At .99 cents, at an average of 4 episodes per month, that's still cheaper than the $65 I'm sending to Time Warner each month. That's if the shows I watch will be available. Still no Big Bang Theory on iTunes, for example.

 

[apolloa]

Hmm, this is a very interesting story. If that 99 cent turns into 99 pence for the UK market then it's an utterly stupid idea. Say you want to watch 74 shows a month, so that's £74 a month, which is about the same as a full complete Sky HD monthly subscription which gets you around 1000 channels whenever you want plus you can rent HD films for 4 pounds. I know which one I have

What's interesting is that's Sky, Murdochs baby, the boss of News Corp????? Well I guess Apple must of approached him?
Still this is just a rumour......

 

[huntercr]

ok though I described what I thought was a better plan in this forum a couple of months ago, I'll chime in here...

$.99 is too expensive if you want people to fundamentally shift their wathcing habits.

Hour shows ( ~45 min to 60 min ) should be $.79 possibly up to $.99
half hour shows should be $.49

discounts for subscribing/ bulk purchases of a show
serial daily shows ( news, "the daily show", talk shows etc ) should receive massive discounts for subcribing.

An entire season for a half hour show should never top $25 and a subscription for a season of an hour show should never top $40.

This pricing ( or something similar ) with deep discounts and rewards for loyalty will be unstoppable.

I know it's not perfect... but I think it's much better than what we've got ( and possibly what we're getting )

 

[I WAS the one]

Maybe you are going to call me crazy, but I pay $160.00 monthly for Verizon FiOS, The things I really want to watch I always record them by schedule in my DVR (included with FiOS) at the end of the month I have 10 TV shows and 5 Movies from HBO or STARS. If I do the math right... .99 cents per episode and 4.99 per movie.... it means less than $30.00 dollars for a whole month of entertainment versus a $160.00 for a bunch of channels and movie channels that I really didn't saw.

In my Book, if I can have an iTV and pay a buck for every show or movie it will be waaayyyy better than this slavery I'm used to.

I will buy an iTV right away and I will be very happy.

 

[iZac]

....all you can eat subscription please, Steve!

 

[I WAS the one]

I only watch about 10 television shows on any regular basis. At .99 cents, at an average of 4 episodes per month, that's still cheaper than the $65 I'm sending to Time Warner each month. That's if the shows I watch will be available. Still no Big Bang Theory on iTunes, for example.

That's what I'm saying!

 

[NinjaHERO]

99 cents an episode. That is 22 bucks a season per show? What a rip off. No thanks. I think a subscription, watch all you want Netflix type model, is more to my liking. Ill wait.

 

[pgwalsh]

Maybe you are going to call me crazy, but I pay $160.00 monthly for Verizon FiOS.

You really are Crazy.

It sounds like you have way more content being delivered than what you use.