Eddy Cue on Apple TV: Customers Should Be Able to 'Buy Whatever They Want, However They Want'

[mwd25]

Why would I pay $40 a month for basic channels?? I paid $50 for my HD antenna and get all those channels with no monthly bill. They need to step up their game if they want to break into the TV industry.

Good Luck

Here, here. I paid I think like $12 for my antennae and I get all the channels they mention and more. I dont know where the hold up is coming from. Content providers I guess?? Why ABC,NBC,CBS,FOX would all think we would pay money to get their channels is beyond me. You should just get all the channels they mention for free. Then pay $40 I guess for a basic lineup with ESPN,A&E, History and the like. The place where we want to be is where we dont need cable. Its not that complicated. If I need to "authenticate" with my cable subscription to be able to watch the NBC app on ATV...well WTF!!! I can watch for free now or IL JUST WATCH WITH THE CABLE SUB IM AUTHENTICATING WITH!!!!!
Oh I can pay $40 for some lame basic lineup??? Well for $60 I can have full HD with a complete package with DVR with a cable subscription. You know....cable, the THING IM TRYING TO GET RID OF!!!
Apple, and I dont blame them for this, needs to convince the content creators( HBO,BBC,AMC etc) to ditch the "content providers" (Cox, Comcast, Time Warner) Stop with the exclusive rights to air content. I get that AMC is probably afraid that if they dont agree to allow cable providers to require you authenticate with a subscription then they will not offer your channel. If cable isnt offering AMC then no one will see it or thats what cable has convinced everyone of. Not today, not anymore. You dont need cable to offer your channel to get viewership, its been proven by now, right?

Well if Apple and Netflix and Hulu finally convinve the AMC'S and HBO'S that their audience will still be here. We are just waiting for you to catch up to us. The technology is right here in smart tv and Roku and ATV. Please join us in the 21st century so we can all quit with the stupid frikking cable business model already!!!!!

 

[sparkso]

well people want Video and Music Downloaders on TvOS. but you are not allowing them.

 

[Cmd-Z]

The 32GB iPhone I get but why PayPal.

I was only pointing out the hypocracy ... guess I forgot the /s.

 

[mwd25]

Hey I have an HD Antenna wanna know all the great free content I get...

2 channels from a local university, 8 religious channels (4 in Korean) and the local Fox channel. Now if I mount it on the roof with a crank to turn it I can tune in to 2 more channels but the content is crap.

You actually have a local university by where you live and you can only get a grand total of 1 network feed....Fox??? Whats the school, University of Bumblefu*k

 

[jinnj]

A point that folks always miss (and I do this too) when they say "I'm paying (say) $70/mo for (say) 210 channels, so they cost $3/each, and I only want five, so that should just be $15 total"... If only the folks who wanted (say) the knitting channel paid for the knitting channel (rather than everyone being forced to contribute $3/mo regardless), the cost per channel would go up a LOT, because each channel will still have the same expenses, but fewer subscribers. And probably quite a few quirky channels that are absolutely the perfect channel, for 10,000 folks nationwide, will fall by the wayside, because you can't run much of a network on $1 million a year (pay one person handsomely, sure; pay ten people, sure; pay a whole crew and provide equipment and a building and utilities and connection expenses? Not a chance).

I'd still like to see ala carte (or small package) pricing, but don't expect your expenditure to go down to just $15/mo.

Yeah Fios has these small bundles called Custom TV ($10 per bundle) after $59 for basic (60+ channels) and 50/50 internet. While Verizon will tell you dropping the phone service doesn't save you much; it will when you figure in the telecom fees.Also to reduce the equipment fees. I have a CableCard, HDHomeRun Prime, purchased a refurbished Windows 7 Media Center PC (Core2Duo) for $79 bucks now I have a DVR and access to TV on all my devices.

I cut my monthly bill by half.

You actually have a local university by where you live and you can only get a grand total of 1 network feed....Fox??? Whats the school, University of Bumblefu*k

I actually live 40 minutes away from New York City. Sure I can setup a massive antenna on the roof and cross my fingers I can get something but the installation expense is not worth it for just another 4 or 5 channels. Fact is that most of the stuff on the major networks is crap.

 

[citysnaps]

Funny how you mention that as Apple's product lineup is starting to bloat up again under Cook.

Funny? Bloating up? Cook introduced a new *category*, the watch. As did Jobs with the iPod, iPhone, and iPad.

Perhaps you believe Apple should just stick to computers.

 

[mwd25]

To Quote:
"Specifically, Cue said the new Apple TV could support whole cable packages from content providers such as Comcast, but he refused to elaborate much further, beyond alluding that Apple wants customers to be "able to buy whatever they want, however they want."

Another one of thousands of examples of Apples Love Of Hypocrisy. They say one thing and do another, its laughable how they lie. One minute they want us to believe this. The next minute they are dictating what limited models they will make. Long time iPhone customers loved the small iPhones. Yet Apple killed them off in favor of taking away choices.

Oops... it must have hit a nerve when they kept reading about how many people still want them, even though these same people were very vocal and told Apple not to stop building the small phones. Now the latest rumor being they are bringing the tiny iPhones back. Almost appears like stubbornness then indecision, then they send one of their celebrated stars out to pump up the volume. Apple... what a company

In what universe did Apple stop making the so called small phones. I assume your referring to Iphone 5 model???? They still have them so not sure what small phone you claim people are clamoring for.

 

[citysnaps]

Why you feel that you have to defend them is curious.

At no time did I even hint that Apple wasn't very smart.

However I am grateful that I have not caught the dreaded "Let's Just Assume and Attack" Syndrome that afflicts so many here when they disagree. Unable to simply discuss their points, they must personalize and argue.

It's very revealing of their mindset.

Defending them? I'm addressing your two examples as to how Apple have become an extremely successful company, both in sales and financials, by making the decisions they have with respect to product offerings, rather than going down the path you believe they should be going - with the "loss of vast profits" you believe they are suffering as a result.

 

[jwdsail]

Apple executive Eddy Cue sat down with CNN senior correspondent Brian Stelter last week for a two-part interview about the new Apple TV, describing the fourth-generation device as an "add-on for most people," since content providers such as ABC, CNN and WatchESPN still require authenticating with a cable or satellite TV subscription.

Eddy Cue's interview with CNNMoney about the new Apple TV last week​

CNNMoney has now shared a few additional comments Cue made about Apple's rumored streaming TV service. Specifically, Cue said the new Apple TV could support whole cable packages from content providers such as Comcast, but he refused to elaborate much further, beyond alluding that Apple wants customers to be "able to buy whatever they want, however they want."Apple's rumored streaming TV service is expected to deliver a lightweight package of about 25 channels for around $40 per month, anchored by popular networks such as ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX, and could launch in 2016 following multiple delays in negotiations between Apple and content providers.

The new Apple TV launched last Friday and features an App Store, Siri, tvOS and more.

Article Link: Eddy Cue on Apple TV: Customers Should Be Able to 'Buy Whatever They Want, However They Want'

Hey Eddy, I want more motorsports content, asap!!! ;-) NASCAR, IMSA, WEC, WRC, GRC, SCCA, Speed51.tv! ...

 

[Tech198]

Dam...

If Eddy is thinking clearly and said "People should be able to buy what they what they want" having a cable only TV package is completely opposite, since u NEED a cable subscription, so that counts me out since i'm not in the U.S and most of the TV services will probably only be available for the new Apple TV anyway. No specific mention about prior generations... same with Apple music.

While the most of the features of a PVR the new Apple TV can also do, its always going to be an "add on" unless all content providers are wining to get on board.. *without a cable subscription*

Basically all of them will the way of HBO Now in addition to cable subscriptions. That's the only way i can see this happen.

Only way for me is via smart-dns but at the end of the day, if cable companies like HBO are just gonna target users by email anyway for "infringing" them i'm going back to the only way i know how...

piracy.

I'm all for Apple to a TV service, but they need to make it un-bundled as well.

For most U.S an Apple TV service seems good, but for outsiders, it would be a waste, since i'd be paying $40 (or equivalent) for only maybe one or two i can watch without cable subscription if lucky...

Pay TV is still cheaper for me in a way..

 

[zakarhino]

Then why didn't you let Amazon have an Apple TV app? Not even talking about the ATV4, I mean past Apple TVs too.

EDIT:
Let's get real, Apple makes most of their money on hardware. Wouldn't an Amazon app make the ATV4 the perfect streaming device for years to come until Apple makes more money when people start buying the 4k ATV5 eventually?

Instead, people who want to use Amazon Prime content are forced to use a Fire TV... and to be honest, the Fire TV hits some points the Apple TV fails to address despite the FireTV's UI being unsatisfactory and boring (don't get me started on the app lineup).

I'll reiterate my point because to me it's just plain silly and I don't understand the situation: Apple makes money on hardware, Amazon makes their money on content so wouldn't an Amazon app make perfect sense? Only pitfall I can think of is that they'll lose some sales in movie rentals and purchases -- shouldn't be much though considering Amazon allows streaming via their website + android support.

 

[mwd25]

Yeah Fios has these small bundles called Custom TV ($10 per bundle) after $59 for basic (60+ channels) and 50/50 internet. While Verizon will tell you dropping the phone service doesn't save you much; it will when you figure in the telecom fees.Also to reduce the equipment fees. I have a CableCard, HDHomeRun Prime, purchased a refurbished Windows 7 Media Center PC (Core2Duo) for $79 bucks now I have a DVR and access to TV on all my devices.

I cut my monthly bill by half.

Ok so here we are on the same page. I had digital cable with HD svs, plus HBO, & Starz. Then tack on the 2 set top boxes that were required, then add on the DVR function for both, After "bundling" with internet( at that time I think I had 12mb dl) I was paying $205-$210 with taxes. I now just have internet from them, $65 for 50mb dl and I have antennae for all local network channels and $8 for Hulu and Netflix. So Im getting everything and more and my hulu and netflix COMBINED FOR A YEAR is cheaper then 1 month of what I paid for cable.Got it all streaming to a ATV and a WDlive media player. Never going back to that crap again!!!

 

[mantan]

Here, here. I paid I think like $12 for my antennae and I get all the channels they mention and more. I dont know where the hold up is coming from. Content providers I guess?? Why ABC,NBC,CBS,FOX would all think we would pay money to get their channels is beyond me. You should just get all the channels they mention for free. Then pay $40 I guess for a basic lineup with ESPN,A&E, History and the like. The place where we want to be is where we dont need cable. Its not that complicated. If I need to "authenticate" with my cable subscription to be able to watch the NBC app on ATV...well WTF!!! I can watch for free now or IL JUST WATCH WITH THE CABLE SUB IM AUTHENTICATING WITH!!!!!
Oh I can pay $40 for some lame basic lineup??? Well for $60 I can have full HD with a complete package with DVR with a cable subscription. You know....cable, the THING IM TRYING TO GET RID OF!!!
Apple, and I dont blame them for this, needs to convince the content creators( HBO,BBC,AMC etc) to ditch the "content providers" (Cox, Comcast, Time Warner) Stop with the exclusive rights to air content. I get that AMC is probably afraid that if they dont agree to allow cable providers to require you authenticate with a subscription then they will not offer your channel. If cable isnt offering AMC then no one will see it or thats what cable has convinced everyone of. Not today, not anymore. You dont need cable to offer your channel to get viewership, its been proven by now, right?

Well if Apple and Netflix and Hulu finally convinve the AMC'S and HBO'S that their audience will still be here. We are just waiting for you to catch up to us. The technology is right here in smart tv and Roku and ATV. Please join us in the 21st century so we can all quit with the stupid frikking cable business model already!!!!!

Content providers make a lot more money with the current model. Several folks have brought up Hulu, Netflix, AP - but those carriers are not running 'first run' content (except for their exclusive material), so essentially it's all 'gravy' for the content providers.

What everybody is asking the content providers to do (well actually the anger is usually misdirected at the satellite/cable companies) is to create a model that gives up their reliable 'bundled network' revenue in hopes that the 'a la carte' customers will give them the same (or more) money. It's like going to someone who's paid a flat salary and trying to convince them to go on commission when they know they will make less money. They will fight it every step of the way because once that cat's out of the bag, it'll be very hard to undo.

I can see some more 'skinny packages'.....but even that's going to be a painful process. We saw some early cracks with ESPN. Their model is based mostly on guaranteed carry percentages. It used to be 90% but has recently dropped to 80%. ESPN is one of the most expensive bundles. A person who doesn't like sports would love to dump it. When the forced carry rate dropped, providers were able to offer a limited amount of 'sports free' subscriptions. ESPN suffered their significant drop in subscribers that resulted in layoffs and cost cutting measures.

According to Forbes the 'unbundled cost' of ESPN would be over $30. When you start adding the cost of bundles, most customers would likely end up spending close to what they spend now...but for less channels. And with the ugly interface of multiple subscriptions and potential delivery vehicles.

 

[zakarhino]

That, sir, is entirely up to Amazon.

But that doesn't make any sense.

 

[mwd25]

Content providers make a lot more money with the current model. Several folks have brought up Hulu, Netflix, AP - but those carriers are not running 'first run' content (except for their exclusive material), so essentially it's all 'gravy' for the content providers.

What everybody is asking the content providers to do (well actually the anger is usually misdirected at the satellite/cable companies) is to create a model that gives up their reliable 'bundled network' revenue in hopes that the 'a la carte' customers will give them the same (or more) money. It's like going to someone who's paid a flat salary and trying to convince them to go on commission when they know they will make less money. They will fight it every step of the way because once that cat's out of the bag, it'll be very hard to undo.

I can see some more 'skinny packages'.....but even that's going to be a painful process. We saw some early cracks with ESPN. Their model is based mostly on guaranteed carry percentages. It used to be 90% but has recently dropped to 80%. ESPN is one of the most expensive bundles. A person who doesn't like sports would love to dump it. When the forced carry rate dropped, providers were able to offer a limited amount of 'sports free' subscriptions. ESPN suffered their significant drop in subscribers that resulted in layoffs and cost cutting measures.

According to Forbes the 'unbundled cost' of ESPN would be over $30. When you start adding the cost of bundles, most customers would likely end up spending close to what they spend now...but for less channels. And with the ugly interface of multiple subscriptions and potential delivery vehicles.

Yeah, I gues I dont get it. I am indeed directing my anger at cable providers. Here is an example and you can tell me if Im wrong. You got WGN right. I would love for WGN or NBC or my local Fox affiliate to be available on ATV. Mind you, these are free, over the air channels they get revenue by advertisers. So fine, Il watch them WITH commercials on ATV. Well, I would have to log in with my cable sub. Why? Because where I live NBC has signed a exclusive distribution contract with Cox and Direct tv to be the exclusive providers of their content. NBC or WGN doesnt give a fu*ck, its the CABLE PROVIDERS that want those rights. They dont want it to be easy for me to just pop on my ATV and get content, even if its free over the air. They dont want me to be able to dump their svs and just turn on my pc and stream NBC content. The Olympics were on free over the air tv at my house in one room in another room could I go online and watch the same free content? No, I had to log in with my cable subscription.

So yeah, where should I direct my anger? These exclusivity deals are all coming from them, not NBC,AMC, HBO.

 

[maxsix]

Defending them? I'm addressing your two examples as to how Apple have become an extremely successful company, both in sales and financials, by making the decisions they have with respect to product offerings, rather than going down the path you believe they should be going - with the "loss of vast profits" you believe they are suffering as a result.

You simply can't help yourself. Or perhaps it's a burning need to argue.

I _never_ said they are suffering. That you would pull that idea out of thin air is interesting.

I suggested they missed _additional_ profits by being deaf to their customers.

 

[Tech198]

Then why didn't you let Amazon have an Apple TV app? Not even talking about the ATV4, I mean past Apple TVs too.

EDIT:
Let's get real, Apple makes most of their money on hardware. Wouldn't an Amazon app make the ATV4 the perfect streaming device for years to come until Apple makes more money when people start buying the 4k ATV5 eventually?

Instead, people who want to use Amazon Prime content are forced to use a Fire TV... and to be honest, the Fire TV hits some points the Apple TV fails to address despite the FireTV's UI being unsatisfactory and boring (don't get me started on the app lineup).

I'll reiterate my point because to me it's just plain silly and I don't understand the situation: Apple makes money on hardware, Amazon makes their money on content so wouldn't an Amazon app make perfect sense? Only pitfall I can think of is that they'll lose some sales in movie rentals and purchases -- shouldn't be much though considering Amazon allows streaming via their website + android support.

its not Apple that's the problem, It''s Amazon...

They don't even sell the Apple TV in their store simply because Amazon don't have a presence.. Apple probably would allow it, but Amazon just doesn't want to, and further sell Apple hardware at their own store either.

 

[mwd25]

Then why didn't you let Amazon have an Apple TV app? Not even talking about the ATV4, I mean past Apple TVs too.

Instead, people who want to use Amazon Prime content are forced to use a Fire TV... and to be honest, the Fire TV hits some points the Apple TV fails to address despite the FireTV's UI being unsatisfactory and boring (don't get me started on the app lineup).

If you want to view Amazon Prime content you can airplay it to your ATV or just buy a Roku. Your not forced into a Fire tv at all I have to say if ATV had a Amazon app it would be a no brainer, as it is now, Im getting a Roku 3. It has everything ATV has plus Amazon.
By the way....How's Simpson?

 

[blucurv]

Ask Bezos.



The issue isn't cable providers its the content companies. Right now I have DirecTV and can watch almost any channel on my iPad wherever I want. Why do I need an TV subscription package? And from Cue's comments it seems like Apple is more interested in creating a platform for others to offer subscription services.

The problem is both since Time Warner and Comcast own most networks out there.

 

[BillyMatt87]

Funny? Bloating up? Cook introduced a new *category*, the watch. As did Jobs with the iPod, iPhone, and iPad.

Perhaps you believe Apple should just stick to computers.

Remind me how many different iPhone, iPad and Mac models there are now. When Jobs was CEO, most product categories had about 2-3 different models or tiers (not including colors) like for example, there were only two iPhones at a time (the current model and last year's) or each MacBook Pro model (13" and 15") had two tiers within. Now it's ballooned to 3-4 models tiers for each line. The iPad lineup is the worst offender and I won't even bother to list how many different iPad models there are now (again not counting the color options).

It's not about the product category per se, but more how many different tiers and iterations there are and how many are absolutely necessary and how many can be phased out to simply the customer's decision.

One of the reasons why I became a fan of Apple in the first place was how simple and streamlined their product line was. Now with Tim Cook, we're starting to tread back into 90s Apple not just with lineup bloating but by the some of the products they've been releasing (iPad Pro/Apple Pencil, Apple Watch). Pretty soon, Apple will try and revive their failed standalone camera and printer from the 90s and try to pass them off as revolutionary game-changing products. Probably not but maybe I'm giving them ideas

The only difference between this post-Jobs Apple era and the previous one is that this time, they're shielded by vast amounts of cash that you and I could only dream of. Basically, Apple is falling back into their old Job-less ways but now they can afford to make a bunch of terrible decisions because of the boatload of money and the good reputation they built up when Jobs returned to be CEO (which is of course starting to wear off).

 

[blucurv]

You're saying the reason Amazon is on Roku but not AppleTV is Amazon's choice? That seems odd but ok. I'd have a new apple tv by now if Amazon was on it.

Yes, and it has everything to do with in-app Purchases/subscription.

Remind me how many different iPhone, iPad and Mac models there are now. When Jobs was CEO, most product categories had about 2-3 different models or tiers (not including colors) like for example, there were only two iPhones at a time (the current model and last year's) or each MacBook Pro model (13" and 15") had two tiers within. Now it's ballooned to 3-4 models tiers for each line. The iPad lineup is the worst offender and I won't even bother to list how many different iPad models there are now (again not counting the color options).

It's not about the product category per se, but more how many different tiers and iterations there are and how many are absolutely necessary and how many can be phased out to simply the customer's decision.

One of the reasons why I became a fan of Apple in the first place was how simple and streamlined their product line was. Now with Tim Cook, we're starting to tread back into 90s Apple not just with lineup bloating but by the some of the products they've been releasing (iPad Pro/Apple Pencil, Apple Watch). Pretty soon, Apple will try and revive their failed standalone camera and printer from the 90s and try to pass them off as revolutionary game-changing products. Probably not but maybe I'm giving them ideas

The only difference between this post-Jobs Apple era and the previous one is that this time, they're shielded by vast amounts of cash that you and I could only dream of. Basically, Apple is falling back into their old Job-less ways but now they can afford to make a bunch of terrible decisions because of the boatload of money and the good reputation they built up when Jobs returned to be CEO (which is of course starting to wear off).

Ugh, blah blah blah. Apple is doomed. Hey, guess what. Only because you don't acknowledge the value of some products like the iPad Pro and the Apple Watch, that doesn't mean that it applies to everyone else. I'm waiting to hit the buy button on the iPad Pro because it'll replace my Wacom tablet in a heartbeat. Finally, a bigger tablet with extraordinary precision that I can carry around with an OS that allows optimum performance. As for the Apple Watch, it is quite an extraordinary companion for my phone. Directions is by far the best use I've had, and messages via dictation has been one of those things that remind me how ahead of the game they are.

So remind me, how is this lineup bloated?

Yes, because Apple would demand a cut of the subscription and Roku doesn't get that.

Sort of. Amazon already gets away with it with Amazon Video Prime on iOS. As long as they don't mention subscription, the user could still log in and use the service. Same policy for ATV.

 

[mwd25]

Damn it blucurv, I was with you all the way.........then you brought up the Apple watch.

 

[blucurv]

Damn it blucurv, I was with you all the way.........then you brought up the Apple watch.

Haha. To be honest Apple Watch is not for everyone. Truth be told, it's a pet project that involved the concept of the iPod Nano + Fitbit + iOS cranked up to 11.

It doesn't feel as essential as an iPhone, but it's pretty awesome when you need it and still has loads of potential. Can't wait to one day replace my house locks and open my place with the watch or turn on my car with it.

 

[BillyMatt87]

Ugh, blah blah blah. Apple is doomed. Hey, guess what. Only because you don't acknowledge the value of some products like the iPad Pro and the Apple Watch, that doesn't mean that it applies to everyone else. I'm waiting to hit the buy button on the iPad Pro because it'll replace my Wacom tablet in a heartbeat. Finally, a bigger tablet with extraordinary precision that I can carry around with an OS that allows optimum performance. As for the Apple Watch, it is quite an extraordinary companion for my phone. Directions is by far the best use I've had, and messages via dictation has been one of those things that remind me how ahead of the game they are.

So remind me, how is this lineup bloated?

Never said Apple was doomed, I actually said the complete opposite considering how much money they have, they can afford to make terrible product/service decisions.

The iPad Pro is way too big for a tablet and honestly it really cuts into the MacBook lineup both in price and overall value plus it was only created as the Apple equivalent to Surface Pro. Also considering how poorly optimized the iOS 7+ UI is on the iPad, it obviously will be even worse on an almost 13" display. The Pencil is definitely the worst aspect of the iPad Pro. An overpriced and glorified stylus which should at least included with every iPad Pro and not be restricted to the use of such. If the Apple Pencil is so important to the iPad Pro experience, why not include it in the box the way every iMac comes with a Magic Mouse and bluetooth keyboard. $100 for an Apple Pencil? Can it even magnetically latch on to the iPad like a Smart Case? This is why people make fun of Apple products and Steve Jobs was at least smart to realize how pointless (no pun intended) styluses are but then again Tim Cook seems to have a penchant for making all the products that definitely would not have happened under Jobs's tenure, because he can.

The biggest issue I have with the Apple Watch is that it's a glorified iPhone accessory and being marketed as a fashion accessory rather than a vital piece of tech. How can you possibly call the Apple Watch a revolutionary and breakthrough product when it can't even be used unless it's paired with an iPhone? Can't a watch work independently of other gadgets or devices you know, like a normal watch?

 

[citysnaps]

You simply can't help yourself. Or perhaps it's a burning need to argue.

I _never_ said they are suffering. That you would pull that idea out of thin air is interesting.

I suggested they missed _additional_ profits by being deaf to their customers.

Suffering, missed additional? Is that a point you are seriously making? "Suffering" used in the context means "as a consequence," not that it is hurting or putting them in a bad position. However, investors would definitely be concerned about the "loss of vast profits," which is the thrust of your post. Why is it that Apple doesn't so clearly see that? Perhaps they have, along with their experience, data and insight not available to people on the outside? The fact that they're one of the most successful companies in the world speaks volumes.

"You simply can't help yourself. Or perhaps it's a burning need to argue."

Please, stop with the insults and ad-hominems against me personally. Saying things like that does help your position. Rather, it greatly diminishes the point you are trying to make. Is "Apple apologist" up next?

 

[nelmat]

Okay... I'll bite.

I have a movie for sale on iTunes. How about letting me SELL it however I want and for how much I want?

I'd like to sell it DRM free on iTunes for $5. Apple can take their 30%.

However, I must sell it with DRM and am only allowed to set the wholesale price, which is grossly over-inflated by all digital marketplaces EXCEPT Amazon. Amazon was selling my movie in HD for $7.99 when iTunes was charging $12.99 with the same wholesale price given to both. Yes, we still get the 70% of the full $12.99, but we WANT it to be cheaper and consistent across services.

Makes the filmmaker look greedy, yet we have no control. Had to set up our own site to sell DRM-free for $5, so that we had somewhere to point people to not get price gouged.

I get that Apple doesn't want to devalue digital goods and that Amazon does... But it is just pushing everyone toward piracy. You can't charge people $13 for a DRM cloud version of my movie when you can buy it on a physical disc for $3 LESS at Wal-Mart.

There are plenty of movies on iTunes for £5/£6 from smaller independant studios. Any distributor of films who doesn't want DRM on their property to ensure its being paid for needs their head examined.